IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2530 of 2010(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.N.KUTTAN, ASST.ENGINEER (RTD), KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, VALUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MELOOR.P.O, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT DEPARTMENT, DIRECTORATE OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN -R1 AND R2 ADV. SRI. M.P.ASHOK KUMAR -R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 2530 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retiree from the service of the third respondent. He has retired from its service while working as Work Superintendent on 30.1.2007. Admittedly, the terminal benefits including DCRG are already admitted to the petitioner and the third respondent was authorised to draw and disburse the same. The only impediment for not disbursing the amount, as admitted, to the petitioner was pendency of a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him while he was in service. However, it is evident from Ext.P5(a) that the said proceedings had already been dropped. Pursuant to the same, the third respondent was again authorised to draw and disburse the admitted terminal benefits including DCRG to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such authorisation, the amount admitted has not been drawn and disbursed to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner submits that certain persons retired from the service of the third respondent subsequent to the retirement of W.P.(C) NO.2530 of 2010 2 the petitioner were granted pensionery benefits. One s uch retiree is Mrs.Meenakumari. Learned counsel for the third respondent fairly submitted that in the case of the aforesaid Mrs.Meenakumari, she was disbursed with the entire pensionery benefits though she retired subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner. It is also admitted that based on Ext.P5(a) there cannot be any further impediment in disbursing the amount admitted to the petitioner. Taking into account the said circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has retired from service as early as on 30.1.2007, there shall be a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to disburse the pensionery benefits admitted and authorised as per Exts.P1 and P2 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.2530 of 2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.2530/2010 JUDGMENT 11th February,2010