IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 16728 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T.M.LEELA, W/O.K.A.GOVINDAN, AGED 60 YEARS, HEADMISTRESS (RETIRED) GOVERNMENT MUSLIM LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, ERATTUPETTA, RESIDING AT KANDATHINANIKAL, POOVARANI P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 577. BY ADV. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN SRI.P.A.KUMARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER, S.S.A., KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI A.J.VARGHESE, FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 16728 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P4 and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be sanctioned and disbursed the entire DCRG which is withheld. 2. Petitioner retired as a Headmistress on 30.6.2003. It is stated that prior to the retirement, on 25.2.2003, being the Headmistress of the school, in the capacity as the Convener of the Village Education Committee, she has executed Ext.P13 agreement for the construction of a Block Resource Center. Obviously, the construction was not completed before her retirement. Long after her retirement, Ext.P1 letter was issued by the 2nd respondent requiring the petitioner to complete the construction before 15.4.2004. This was replied by the petitioner by Ext.P2 inter alia contending that as she had retired from service WP(C) 16728/08 2 subsequent to the execution of the agreement, she could no longer be held responsible for continuing or completing the construction. It is stated that thereafter also letters similar to Ext.P1 were issued to her and reply similar to Ext.P2 were also repeated. 3. While the matter stood as above, Ext.P4 dated 23.7.2004 was issued to the petitioner informing that the Government have incurred a loss of Rs.4,77,850/- and calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the said liability should not be fixed and recovered from her. Petitioner filed Ext.P5 reply disputing the liability. Thereafter also similar communications continued, but the fact remains that no order fixing liability has been issued at any time. Now what the petitioner mainly contends is that she having retired from service on 30.6.2003, the outer time limit of three years prescribed in Note 3 to Rule 3 Part III KSR has expired and therefore she is entitled to be released the entire DCRG that has been withheld. WP(C) 16728/08 3 4. Though a counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent, no answer has been given in so far as the aforesaid contention raised by the petitioner is concerned. This is despite the fact that such a plea has been specifically raised by the petitioner in ground B of the writ petition. Although the learned Government Pleader made an attempt to canvass before me that Ext.P3 itself indicates the fixation of liability, I am not in a position to accept the plea for the reason that in my view Ext.P3 is only a show cause notice and it does not reflect the fixation of liability as is contemplated in the Rules. For these reasons I am inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner that the outer time limit prescribed by the Rule referred to above having expired, petitioner is entitled to have her DCRG released. 5. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the DCRG due to the petitioner, which has been withheld, shall be released as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within eight weeks of production of a copy of WP(C) 16728/08 4 this judgment, with notice to all concerned. 6. I clarify that this judgment has been rendered only in the context of Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR and will not stand in the way of the respondents taking recourse to any other measures for recovery of any amount due to them, if it is permissible in law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-