IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 WA.No. 2569 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11739/2008 Dated 17/08/2009 .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS IN WPC -------------------------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BENNY GERVASIS RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER IN THE WPC ------------------------------------ G.SATHIA SEELAN, RT. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, RESIDING AT SATHIAGIRI PRAMADAN VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. MR. T.SETHUMADHAVAN MR. PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH MR. K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.2569 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 17th August, 2008 in W.P. (C).No.11739 of 2008, the respondent therein preferred the instant appeal. 2. The sole respondent herein was the writ petitioner. He retired from service on 31.05.2006. It appears that on the date of the retirement of the respondent, there was a disciplinary enquiry pending against him for some time. But the enquiry did not reach its logical culmination. 3. Though the respondent was paid some of the terminal benefits due to him in accordance with the relevant Rules applicable to the service of the respondent, the amount due under the head known as 'DCRG' was not disbursed. Therefore, the respondent approached this Court by filing the above mentioned Writ Petition with the prayers as follows:- “i. Writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to issue NLC to the petitioner forthwith; W.A.No.2569 of 2009 -:2:- ii. an order declaring that the petitioner is entitled to get interest at market rate on DCRG amount of Rs.281886/- from 1/6/2006 till the payment and fixing responsibility on 2nd respondent; and iii. Granting such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and which may be prayed for hereafter”. By the judgment under appeal, the Writ Petition was allowed. Hence the Writ Appeal. 4. The Writ Petition was allowed essentially on the basis of the decision rendered by the apex Court in State of Kerala & 2 others vs. M.Padmanabhan Nair (AIR 1985 SC 356). The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- “4. The fact that a disciplinary action was pending against the petitioner on the date on which he retired from service is not seriously disputed. It is common ground that though a memo of charges had been issued in the year 2005, an enquiry into the charges against the petitioner was not conducted. From the stand taken by the second respondent in the counter affidavit it is evident that no criminal case is also pending against the petitioner. In such circumstances, I hold that there was culpable delay on the part of the respondents in disbursing the DCRG sanctioned to the petitioner. The apex Court has in State of Kerala & 2 others v. M.Padmanabhan Nair (AIR 1985 SC 356) held that DCRG should be paid within two months from the date of retirement and that if it is not paid, W.A.No.2569 of 2009 -:3:- interest on DCRG should be paid. In the instant case, as the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2006, applying the dictum laid down by the apex Court in State of Kerala & 2 others v. M.Padmanabhan Nair (supra), the petitioner is entitled to interest on the unpaid amount of DCRG with effect from 1.8.2006”. 5. We do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal, though we may state here that the observation made by the learned Judge at paragraph 3 to the effect that in view of the retirement of the respondent the disciplinary action could not have continued, perhaps is not an accurate statement in law. However, we do not propose to examine the said question in detail in the instant appeal, as it is not necessary for deciding the issue on hand. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not see any merits in the Writ Appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. kmd