IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8080 of 2009(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- V. SATHY AMMA, SUPERINTENDENT (RETD), MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY, RESIDING AT 'KARTHIKA', BHARANIKAVU NORTH.P.O., KAYAMKULAM (VIA), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI MR.BRIJESH MOHAN MR.T.R.SADEESAN MR.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT DEPARTMENT,VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 4. MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY, MAVELIKKARA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN R4 BY ADV. MR.K.HARILL, SC, MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 8080 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2009 JUDGdMENT The petitioner retired from service while working as Superintendent at the 4th respondent Municipality way back on 31.10.2007. As per Exts.P1 and P2, DCRG and commuted value of pension was sanctioned to her. Since the same has not been disbursed so far she has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 2. Apart from the same 4th respondent has imposed a liability of Rs.11,708/- as per notice dated 4.2.2005. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal Ext.P3 before the second respondent and the same has not been disposed of so far. 3. The petitioner has produced Ext.P7, along with I.A.No.3848 of 2009 dated 1.12.2008, issued by the second respondent to the Under Secretary, 'Sutharya Keralam' stating that the Municipality has already been directed to disburse the pensionary benefits from the amount of arrears to be remitted by them in the Central Pension Fund. It is therefore, argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there cannot be any wpc:8080 of 2009 2 justification in not disbursing the amount. 4. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. It is pointed out that there were no amount payable to the Central Pension Fund and therefore, there is no failure on the part of the Municipality in not disbursing the amount. Presently, because of the lack of sufficient funds, the municipality is unable to disburse the entire amount in a lump. It is also submitted that two other pensioners retired from service earlier than the petitioner are also be paid the pensionary benefits and steps are being taken to make available the funds to disburse the entire amounts. It is prayed that Municipality may be granted sufficient time to disburse the entire amount. It is also submitted that within two months from today half of the amount sanctioned as per Exts.P1 and P2 can be disbursed and the entire balance could be disbursed within a further period of two months. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms. a. Second respondent will consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal after hearing the petitioner and the Municipality within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy wpc:8080 of 2009 3 of this judgment. b. Fourth respondent will disburse half of the total amount sanctioned as per Exts.P1 and P2 within two months from today and the entire balance will be disbursed within a further period of two months thereafter. c. If there is any failure to disburse the amount within the period as shown above it will carry interest at the rate of 8% from today till the entire amount due is disbursed. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the Municipality that an amount of 24 lakhs is yet to be allotted by the second respondent to the Municipality even though the amount has been sanctioned. It is up to the second respondent to look into the matter and take appropriate action, if any amount sanctioned as such to them is yet to be disbursed by the Municipality. The amount covered by the liability will be disbursed depending upon the outcome of the appeal. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps