IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33675 of 2008(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SMT.C.SREEDEVI, RETIRED HEALTH SUPERVISOR, CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, RESIDING AT: SREENIVAS, 25/34A, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. MR.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARAIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHALAKUDY. 4. SRI.M.N.SASIDHARAN, MUNICIPAL CHAIRMAN, CHALAKKUDY, RESIDING AT MITTATHULLI HOUSE, CHALAKKUDY. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH R3 BY ADV. MR.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.33675 of 2008-H ------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.S.Ramesh Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Antony Mukkath, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.M.P.Ashok Kumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for Chalakkudy Municipality. The petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2007 while she was working as Health Supervisor in the Chalakudy Municipality. This writ petition was filed on 13.11.2008 aggrieved by the non payment of terminal benefits. The petitioner’s grievance is that the terminal benefits payable to her and sanctioned by the Director of Urban Affairs by Ext.P7 order dated 14.8.2008 were withheld for no justifiable reason. It is now conceded at the Bar that the amounts payable to the petitioner by way of terminal benefits have been disbursed. In my opinion, in view of the fact that the amounts sanctioned as per Ext.P7 order dated 14.8.2008 have already been paid and as the writ petition was filed within three months from the date on which the pensionary benefits were sanctioned, the petitioner is not justified in claiming interest for delayed payment of terminal benefits. The petitioner has not been able to point out with W.P(C) No.33675 of 2008-H 2 reference to any cogent material that there was culpable delay on the part of the third respondent in disbursing the terminal benefits. Since the terminal benefits have already been paid, I am of the opinion that no further orders are called for in this writ petition. It is accordingly closed as infructuous. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab