IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22876 of 2004(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ M.CHINMAYEEDEVI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE (RTD), `CHEEROTH', KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM -686 039. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN SRI.V.V.MATHEW SRI.M.SALIM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 3. PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM-686 002. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22876/04 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 12.8.99 OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, KERALA. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 13.3.2001 OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, KERALA. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.AUD(5) 13245/95 DT 5.2.2001 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 17.4.01 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 13.7.01 ALONG WITH THE REPLY OF THE AUDIT NOTES. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 8.1.02 ALONG WITH THE PROVISIONAL LIABILITY CERTIFICATE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22876 OF 2004 (W) ===================== Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired as Deputy Director of Agriculture on 30/6/99. Her grievance is against Ext.P6, the provisional liability certificate issued on 8/1/2002 indicating a liability of Rs.59,23,542/-. 2. This writ petition has to be allowed on the only ground that liability has not been fixed within the time specified in Note 2 to Rule 3, Part III KSR. Ext.P6 dated 8.1.2002 is only a provisional fixation of liability and so far liability has not been finally fixed. By now, the three year specified also has expired, and hence, there cannot be any fixation of liability at this distance of time. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to disburse the DCRG that is due to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. However, this shall be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to seek appropriate action for recovery of the amount. Though the counsel for the petitioner pressed for payment WPC 22876/04 :2 : of interest, having regard to the fact that the writ petition is disposed of on technical grounds, I am not inclined to allow the prayer. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp