IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 17990 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.P.RAGHAVAN,,AGED 6 0 YEARS, S/O.LATE V.K.PAPPU,VELANPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOTTAMAN, RANNI,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, (RETIRED P.A. TO TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KASARAGOD). BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.17990 of 2010 (W) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was PA to the Tribal Development Officer, Kasaragod. He retired from service on 31/05/2005. He is paid only provisional pension. The reason is that he is an accused in CC No.17/02, which was pending before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, which has since been transferred to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam and re- numbered as CC No.73/2008. 2. Even according to the learned Government Pleader, pendency of the case is the reason for paying only provisional pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in Aravindaksha Panicker v. Accountant General (2007(4) KLT 1031), paragraphs 20 and 21 of which read as under:- “20. In the light of the aforementioned factors, I am of the view that the pendency of the departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings, as contemplated by Rule 3 of Part III of the Rules, is not a reason for the Government to withhold the DCRG admissible and due to a Government servant, beyond the period of 3 years from the date on which the Government servant becomes a pensioner, as contemplated in Note 3 to R.3 to Part III of the WP(C) No.17990/2010 -2- Rules. If the determination and quantification of the liability is not done within the said period of 3 years, then the DCRG cannot be withheld any more. It has to be released to the Government servant. This is, of course, without prejudice to the right of the Government to initiate separate proceedings against the Government servant before a Civil “Court for recovery of any loss caused to the Government by the Government servant. But exercise of such right is unrelated to the right of the Government servant to get his DCRG. 21. If this view is accepted, then the last portion of R.3A(a) will have to be suitably construed or read down, and should be restricted to cases where the Government is in a position to exercise the right of adjustment of liability of a Government servant from the DCRG payable to him. On other words, the interdiction against payment of DCRG as contemplated by R.3A(a) will apply only for a period of 3 years from the date on which the Government servant becomes a pensioner as contemplated under Note 3 R.3.” In the light of the above decision, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the terminal benefits that are due to the petitioner shall be disbursed. However, it is made clear that this shall be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to recover the amount due in accordance with law, if the decision is ultimately against the petitioner. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg