IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35455 of 2008(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------------ 1. E.G.SATHI DEVI, ILLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE IRINJALAKKUDA PO., TRICHUR. 2. S.SATHI AMMA, W/O.RAJAVARMA, KOTTARATHIL MADOM, IRINJALAKKUDA P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.KARNIS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, IRINJALAKKUDA MUNICIPALITY, IRINJALAKKUDA PO., TRICHUR. ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R2 SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35455 of 2008(U) PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.P11/761/08 DATED 11/8/2008. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR SENDING THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18/10/2008. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO. P11/1895/07 DATED 4/04/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE rhs P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 35455 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.N.K.Karnis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Antony Mukkath, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai, the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent. 2. The petitioners are pensioners. They retired from service, while they were serving in the Irinjalakuda Municipality, on 30-9-2007 and 31-10-2007 respectively. The grievance voiced by the petitioners in this writ petition is that though by Exs.P1 and P3 orders dated 11-8- 2008 and 4-4-2008 respectively, the Director of Urban Affairs sanctioned terminal benefits and directed the Secretary of the Irinjalakuda Municipality to pay the same, till date, the terminal benefits have not been disbursed. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Irinjalakuda Municipality has filed a statement dated 20-7- 2009 wherein it is stated that out of the terminal benefits sanctioned to first petitioner, only the commuted value of pension aggregating to Rs.2,85,455/- remains to be paid and that as regards the second petitioner, the only amount that remains to be paid is the commuted value of pension aggregating to W.P.(C) No. 35455/08 2 Rs.1,50,470/-. It is also stated that the Municipality could not disburse the terminal benefits in full and in time for want of funds. When this writ petition came up for hearing today, the learned standing counsel submitted that as the Municipality does not have the requisite funds to pay the commuted value of pension, the Municipality may be granted time till 31-3-2010 to pay the balance amount. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar on either side. The first petitioner retired from service on 30-9-2007 and second petitioner retired from service on 31-10-2007. 22 months have passed thereafter. In such circumstances, payment of terminal benefits in full cannot be further delayed. However, in view of the fact that the Municipality is facing acute shortage of funds, they should be given time to pay the balance amount. I accordingly, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Secretary to Irinjalakuda Municipality to disburse the unpaid portion of the terminal benefits to the petitioners on or before 31-10-2009. If payment, as directed above, is not made, the petitioners will be entitled to realize interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from this day onwards. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.