IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 20455 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- STANISLAUS NORONHA, PROFESSOR (RETIRED) FATIMA MATHA NATIONAL COLLEGE, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT SHINE DALE, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM. 4. PRINCIPAL, FATIMA MATHA NATIONAL COLLEGE KOLLAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE FOR R1 TO R3, ADV. SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM) FOR R4, SRI.H.RAMANAN FOR R4, SRI.JAMES JOSE FOR R4J. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.20455 of 2008-I = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT Ext.P3 judgment was issued by the Division Bench directing the issuance of LC/NLC. It appears that thereafter, certain amounts have been released towards DCRG and other benefits, however that the petitioner is still awaiting release of the differentials on account of pension and also certain other incidentals which he claims. Ext.P6 was filed by him before the second respondent thereafter who, through the third respondent, has to work out the issue. I may notice that the petitioner states that the fourth respondent, the employer, has yet to forward certain details to the queries put by respondent 3 or 2, as the case may be. The petitioner having retired in 1999, it would be unjust to compel that Professor to continue to wait for settlement of his retiral WP(C)20455/2008 -: 2 :- benefits and for release of arrears even if it be regarding the differentials. Under such circumstances, it is directed that respondents 3 and 2 will do the needful to take a final decision on Ext.P6 and to aid such process, the 4th respondent will furnish all necessary details as are, or may be, called for by the third respondent or the second respondent, as the case may be. The 4th respondent shall do the aforesaid within one month and respondents 2 and 3 will ensure that a final decision is taken on Ext.P6 within an outer limit of three months from now. The writ petition is ordered accordingly, leaving open all other questions. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/290808