IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15943 of 2011(P) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SARAMMA. K.P, ABY NIVAS, PERUMBAIKADU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, SUB TREASURY, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, KOTTAYAM-686 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 15943 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER NO.P-04/OT/G-39933308 DATED 01/06/2007 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/10/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.15943 of 2011-P. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a retiree from the post of Junior Public Health Nurse. Subsequent to her retirement, as per Ext.P1, an amount of Rs.14,348/- was authorised for payment to the petitioner towards revised pension. However, the 2nd respondent declined to effect payment of the said authorised amount citing the reason that the name of the authorised family pensioner has not been incorporated thereon. The contention of the petitioner is that it is not at all a requirement and therefore, there was absolutely no justification for the 2nd respondent to deny disbursement of the said amount. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the contention of the petitioner in that regard is true to the legal position and therefore the 2nd respondent should have effect the payment in terms of Ext.P1. However, on account of lapse of time WP(C).No.15943/2011-P. 2 Ext.P1 got invalidated and therefore, it has to be revalidated. For the said purpose the 2nd respondent has already resubmitted Ext.P2 and it is now pending with the 1st respondent. After revalidating the same, the amount authorised as per Ext.P1 would be disbursed to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to revalidate Ext.P1 in accordance with law and forward it to the 2nd respondent with authorisation to effect payment of the amount mentioned thereunder, to the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, on receipt of such authorisation the 2nd respondent shall effect payment, forthwith. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, (Judge) Kvs/-