IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 7727 of 2010(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.E.JAMES, S/O.P.M EANOS, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUNNAPRA P.O.,ALAPPUZHA, (RETERED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHERTHALA MINICIPALITY) BY ADV. SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.A.D.SHAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY. ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. A true copy of the Order No.76/09 dated 28.4.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P2. A true copy of the representation dated 27.1.2010 submitted by the petitioner to the respondent 2 and 3. // true copy // P.S to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.7727 OF 2010 (M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired as Assistant Executive Engineer from the 3rdrespondent Municipality on 31.3.2007. His grievance is regarding the inordinate delay in payment of DCRG and other terminal benefits. 2. Municipality had filed a statement detailing its financial constraints and submitting that, in any case the payments will be made within 10 months. On the other hand counsel for the petitioner, explaining his financial difficulties seeks an order for immediate payment. 3. Although it is true that pursuant to the interim order of this court, Municipality has already paid Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner. Municipality admits that the balance amount is still due. The amount claimed being terminal benefits, Municipality cannot avoid payment of the dues. At the same time this court cannot forget the financial constrains of the Municipality also. In order to reconcile the conflicting claims, it is directed that the amount due to the petitioner shall be paid within six months from WPC.No.7727 /2010 :2 : today. 4. It is pointed out that the 2nd respondent has fixed a liability of Rs.1,56,090/- on the petitioner and that this amount is to be recovered from the DCRG due . According to the petitioner this liability was fixed without notice. Having regard to the above, it is clarified that it will be open to the petitioner to move the 2nd respondent, disputing the liability so fixed, in which event second respondent shall consider the contentions of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in the matter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/