IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17938 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ROOSEVELT.P.K., AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.PATHROSE, SR.ASSISTANT(RETD), O/O.THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KOTTARAKKARA NEDUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, KARIKUZHI PADAPPAKARA PO., KOLLAM-691503 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PLACE PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 6 95 004. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PLACE PO TRIVANDRUM-695004 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOTTARAKKARA. ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO 3 SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.17938/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF PA VIII PPO 31112 DATED 30/10/2003. P2 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20/03/2006 IN WPC NO.32000/2004. P3 : COPY OF CERTIFICTE DATED 23/11/2006. P4 : COPY OF LETTER NO.EB7(a)/RIA/313/08 DATED 23/05/2008 OF PUBLIC INFORMATIO N OFFICER, KSEB. P5 : COPY OF LETTER NO.EBI/APPR/06-07/130/1.07.06 OF R3. P6 : COPY OF LETTER NO.LA(S) IV/18869/2004 DATED 31/08/2006 OF SECRETARY, KSEB. P7 : COPY OF REPLY DATED 11/10/2006 OF PETITIONER. P8 : COPY OF LETTER NO.PA VIII.PPO 31112 DATED 10/03/2008. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.17938 of 2008 (I) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 1st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6, by which liability of Rs.3,76,158/- has been fixed as the liability of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was a Senior Assistant in the KSEB. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31/03/2003. As he was not paid full pension and DCRG, he approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.32000/2004, which was disposed of by judgment dated 20/03/2006, a copy of which is Ext.P2. There, it was directed that monthly pension due to the petitioner shall be paid. Proceeding further, it was stated that the respondents will be free to fix liability of the petitioner after issuing notice to him. Apparently in pursuance to the liberty thus given, on 31/08/2006, liability of Rs.3,76,158/- has been fixed on the petitioner, which is under challenge. The challenge raised by the petitioner is mainly on the ground that the fixation of liability as WP(C) No.17938/2008 -2- reflected in Ext.P6 was without notice to him, and that the same was done beyond three years from the date of his retirement. 3. Although in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent has stated that in compliance with Ext.P2 judgment, notice was issued to the petitioner for fixation of his liability, Ext.P6 order does not show that any notice has been given to the petitioner. The counter affidavit also does not show even the date of the notice allegedly issued, and the respondents have not even produced a copy of the notice. In the light of these facts and also in view of the specific case of the petitioner, that notice was not issued to him before fixing the liability, I should accept the case of the petitioner that the fixation of liability was without notice to him. That apart, a reading of Ext.P6 itself show that the said order was passed after three years from the date of retirement of the petitioner. This also is impermissible in view of Note 2 to Rule 3, Part III KSR. 4. Having regard to the above, the liability as fixed in Ext.P6 is set aside and the respondents are directed to release the DCRG due to the petitioner that is withheld. This shall be done as WP(C) No.17938/2008 -3- expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that his judgment will not stand in the way of the respondents in recovering the amount, if any, due from the petitioner in accordance with law. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg