IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33092 of 2005(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- O.M.RAVINDRAN, MARKETING ASSISTANT (RETIRED) AGED 57, SALES OFFICE-193, NATTAKAM, KOTTAYAM-686013. BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHEAL SRI.P.NOOR SEMIR RI.P.N.GOPI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE CEMENTS LTD.(A GOVT. OF KERALA UNDERTAKING) NATTAKAM KOTTAYAM-686013, REPRESENTD BYITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER,(P&A), THE TRAVANCORE CEMENTS LTD., (A GOVT. OF KERALA UNDERTAKING) NATTAKAM, KOTTAYAM-686013. ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SC, TRAVANCORE CEMENT FOR R1 SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R1 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.8.2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 33092/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.7.6.04. P2. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.12.4.05. P3. COPY OF THE REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.7.4.05. P4. COPY OF THE MEMO DTD.27.7.04. P5. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.5.8.04 TO R2. P6. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.9.6.05. P7. COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD.5.9.05. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R1A. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.16.3.06. R1B. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.17.3.06. R1C. COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER. R1D. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.31.3.06. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 33092 of 2005 ================== Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired from service of the 1st respondent on 31.8.2004. The petitioner's grievance is that the gratuity due to the petitioner has not yet been paid. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following relief; “.... to issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondents to disburse the gratuity amount due to the petitioner on his retirement from the service of the respondent on 31.08.04 and also to allow the cost of the petition.” 2. The respondents have file a counter affidavit, wherein the stand taken is that the petitioner was guilty of misconducts involving loss to the 1st respondent and, therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which are pending. That is why, the gratuity has not been disbursed to the petitioner insofar as the loss caused to the 1st respondent on account of the misconduct of the petitioner has to be adjusted against the gratuity, is their contention. The learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that the disciplinary enquiry has since been completed. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The petitioner retired from service on 31.8.2004. After retirement, the employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent ceases. Therefore, disciplinary action can be w.p.c.33092/05 2 continued only if there is a provision in the service rules applicable to the petitioner reserving the right of the 1st respondent to continue disciplinary action even after retirement. The respondents could not point out any such rule enabling the 1st respondent to continue disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of the petitioner. Admittedly till the retirement of the petitioner no punishment has been imposed on the petitioner for any misconduct involving loss to the 1st respondent. As such, the 1st respondent cannot deduct any amount from the gratuity due to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the respondents are liable to disburse the gratuity due to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to disburse the gratuity due to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Interlocutory application stands closed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge