IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 1917 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31699/2007 Dated 06/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ T.P.GOPINATH, S/O.LATE P.E.KESAVAN ACHARI, AGED 59 YEARS, GOPIKA, 45/1841-A, NICE GARDENS, P.J.ANTONY GROUND ROAD, PACHALAM, KOCHI-682 012. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SECRETARY, KOCHI CORPORATION, KOCHI. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS ADV.SRI.PRAVEEN K.JOY, S.C., R3. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.1917 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 20th January, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant retired from service, while working as Superintending Engineer in the Corporation of Kochi, on 31.3.2005. The Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (for short, 'DCRG') due to him, was not released, for want of non-liability certificate. Feeling aggrieved by the commissions and omissions of the respondents in this regard, the writ petition was filed. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation of Kochi, submitted that the petitioner's liability was already fixed. Noticing that submission, the writ petition was disposed of on 6.3.2008. It was ordered to disburse the DCRG due to the petitioner, less the liability, stated to have been fixed, within three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. The learned Single Judge also gave liberty to the petitioner/appellant to challenge the fixation of liability, if so advised. 3. According to the appellant, the liability could not have been fixed at this distance of time, and therefore, the same WA NO.1917/09 2 should not be recovered from the DCRG due to him. Raising this ground, this Writ Appeal is preferred. 4. We think, if there is any illegality in the fixation of the liability, the appellant can work out his remedy independently, by challenging the said order. In view of the above position, we think it is not necessary to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the appellant, regarding the fixation of liability, and his right to raise the same in appropriate proceedings. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.1917 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 20th January, 2010.