IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 21521 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N. VASUDEVAN , BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (RETIRED) AMBALAPUZHA, RESIDING AT ABHILASH BHAVAN, PONNEZHA WEST, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM, P.O. MAVELIKKARA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.RESMI G. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER SUB TREASURY MAVELIKKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21521 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd October, 2008. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.Brijesh Mohan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.Nandakumar, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2000, on attaining the age of superannuation. His grievance is that though DCRG was sanctioned as per Ext.P1 as early as on 13.6.2003, it has not been disbursed, notwithstanding repeated requests. The petitioner contends that the delay in disbursing DCRG sanctioned to him as per Ext.P1 is arbitrary and illegal. 3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent to the effect that Local Fund Audit Report has reported a liability of Rs.1,04,166/= in relation to the financial year 1999-2000 and that the said fact was brought to the notice W.P.(C) No.21521/2008 2 of the Commissioner for Rural Development by the Block Development Officer, Irikkur, in Annexure-A letter dated, 9.12.2005. The second respondent contends, relying on the said letter, that as the liability exceeds the amount sanctioned to the petitioner as DCRG, it cannot be disbursed to him, except on production of Indemnity Bond and Non Liability Certificate for the last three years prior to his retirement. 4. The petitioner has along with I.A.No.12249 of 2008 produced Ext.P5 letter dated, 22.11.2007, sent by the Joint Director of Local Fund Audit, Thiruvananthapuram, demanding payment of a sum of Rs.23,464/= towards excess payment made to him during the year 1999-2000, while he was in service in the Irikkur Grama Panchayat and Ext.P6 receipt, dated 29.8.2008, evidencing payment of the said sum by the petitioner in the Sub Treasury, Mavelikkara. It is evident from Exts.P5 and P6 that the demand made by the Local Fund Audit for refund of the sum of Rs.23,464/= for the financial year 1999-2000 has been satisfied by the petitioner. A reading of Ext.P5 indicates that it is issued in relation to the period specified in Annexure-A. W.P.(C) No.21521/2008 3 In this state of affairs, the respondents are not entitled to withhold payment of DCRG sanctioned to the petitioner as per Ext.P1. I, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority among the respondents to disburse the DCRG sanctioned to the petitioner as per Ext.P1, within 30 days from today. The claim of the petitioner for interest is left open to be decided in other appropriate proceedings. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.