IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19712 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.S. NARENDRAN, S/O SANKARAN NAIR, AGED 59 YEARS, LOWER DIVISION CLERK (RETIRED), DEVIKULAM TALUK OFFICE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, RESIDING AT NEDUMAGATTU HOUSE, ADIMALLY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTAHPURAM. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.19712 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, who retired from service on 31.10.2004 as an L.D. Clerk, is aggrieved that retirement benefits due to him have not been disbursed so far. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that there is a vigilance case pending against the petitioner as C.CNo.35/2001 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, in which, the petitioner was Accused No.5. While so, petitioner retired from service. DCRG is withheld on account of the pendency of the vigilance case. Apparently, loss by the petitioner is assessed at Rs.2,30,560/-. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice has been received by the petitioner with regard to the said aspect and therefore liability was not fixed within a period of three years from the date of retirement. In circumstances where the liability has not been fixed W.P ( C) No.19712 of 2008 2 within three years, it is not possible to withhold the DCRG due to the petitioner. It is further submitted that period of suspension of the petitioner is to be regularised. 3. In so far as the prayer for regularisation of the period of suspension, in my view, vigilance case against the petitioner has to be completed and orders under Rule 56 Part I of the K.S.R. could be passed only after completion of the vigilance case. But there is no justification to withhold the DCRG. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take steps to disburse to the petitioner the DCRG due to him within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Obviously, the right of the Government to take appropriate steps to recover the loss, if any, by the petitioner will be unaffected by this Court's order or the disbursal of the DCRG pursuant thereto. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.19712 of 2008 2 W.P ( C) No.19712 of 2008 2