IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 29569 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.S.JOSE, AGED 55YEARS S/O.SKARIA, RESIDING AT KUNNAPPATTIL HOUSE KANNOTH,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER FINANCE WING, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.H.DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY KOZHIKODE. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY P.H.DIVISION,THALASSERY. ADV. SRI.J.KRISHNA KUMAR, SC, KWA FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the communication issued by the 2nd respondent to the Superintending Engineer, Kannur // true copy // P.S to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.29569 OF 2009(M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired from the service of the Water Authority as Junior Superintendent from the P.H. Sub Division,Thalassery on 31.1.2009. In this writ petition his grievance is that the DCRG due to him has not been disbursed for the reason that the 3rd respondent has not so far issued Non Liability Certificate, as the liability has not been intimated to the 3rd respondent. 2. From the counter affidavit, it would appear that the reason for non issuance of the Non liability Certificate is that one Sri. Jayaprakash, who was absorbed as NMR Watchman, was paid an amount of Rs. 88,522/- in excess of what was actually due to him. It is stated that in the judgment in WP(c).No.30866/2000, this court permitted the Water Authority to recover the excess payment made, from whoever is responsible. According to the respondents petitioner is one among the officers who dealt with the matter, checked and passed the bill. Counter affidavit would also show that the process of recovery as permitted by this court is not finalized WPC.No. 29569/09 :2 : and that is the reason for the delay in the matter. 3. If in the light of the judgment of this court, the Water Authority is entitled to recover the amounts erroneously paid from the officers concerned, they have to take appropriate action in that direction and liability should be settled on an expeditious basis. On the other hand, if as stated by the petitioner the excess amount paid to Sri. Jayaprakash has already been recovered from him, no further action is needed to be taken against the officers and the NLC can be issued. In the circumstances the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. 4. If the amount erroneously disbursed to Sri. Jayapraksh has already been recovered from him in full and no other liability is outstanding in this regard, the non liability certificate shall be issued to the petitioner. Necessary action in this behalf shall be done by respondents 3 and 4 on the production of a copy of the judgment. 5. On the other hand, if the amount has not been recovered from Sri. Jayaprakash and the loss is yet to be recouped from the employees including the petitioner, steps in that regard will be WPC.No. 29569/09 :3 : expedited and final orders in the matter shall be passed and liability /non liability certificate as the case shall be issued by respondents 3 and 4 without further delay, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that this court has not expressed anything on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner disputing his liability and it will be open to the petitioner to approach the civil court seeking relief against such claim. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/