IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 12792 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ B.SARASWATHY, KALARICKAL VELI, C.M.C.22, CHERTHALA, (JUNIOR PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE (RETIRED), CHERTHALA MAUNCIPALITY. BY ADV. SRI.ANANDARAJAN.N RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, CHERTHALA MUNCIPAL COUNCIL,CHERTHALA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETRIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G1-1529/2002 DATED 29.4.06 RELIEVING THE PETITIONER FROM THE SERVICE. EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE LAST REPRESENTATION DTED 16.3.07 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.G1-5746/05 DATED 25.10.06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDDENT TO THE Petitioner EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE MEMO SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30.10.06 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER UPA. NO.839/05 DATED 28.4.05 ISSUED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY, CDS, CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY TO SMT.PRIYATHAMA, CDS CHAIRPERSON. (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).12792/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner retired from the service of the second respondent as Junior Public Health Nurse on 30.4.2006. At the time of filing the writ petition, she had a grievance that no retirement benefits due and admissible to her were disbursed. What survives now is only the DCRG due to the petitioner, sanctioned by the Director of Urban Affairs, the first respondent. The dispute is centered around the amount shown in Ext.P3, which is a notice dated 25.10.2006 issued by the Secretary of Cherthala Municipal Council, the second respondent, proposing to treat the amount of Rs.86,295/- as liability of the petitioner. Apparently petitioner filed her objection thereto as Ext.P5. But even before the municipality passes a final order on Ext.P3, first respondent seems to have treated the amount of Rs.86,295/- as liability of the petitioner as is evidenced from Ext.R2(a) order dated 6.7.2007. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the retirement benefits due to her. W.P.(C).12792/2007 2 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. N.Anandarajan and the learned counsel for the second respondent Mr.Omprakash. 3. The short question for consideration is whether Ext.P3 can be treated as one which determines the liability of the petitioner. In my view, Ext.P3 obviously is titled as show cause notice and this fact is admitted by the second respondent,Municipality, also. As is evidenced by Ext.R2(a) a memo was issued requiring the petitioner to attend a personal hearing before the fixation of liability, as proposed under Ext.P3. Mr.Omprakash submits that the personal hearing pursuant to Ext.R2(a) has been completed on 15.1.2008. Municipality is yet to pass orders. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that W.P.(C).12792/2007 3 apart from DCRG, there is some amount due by way of Provident Fund and this has to be disbursed by the first respondent. 5. In the result, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: (i). Second respondent shall disburse the amount due to the petitioner by way of DCRG sanctioned under Ext.R2(a) on or before 31.3.2008. (ii). Liability if any, as against the petitioner will be fixed in accordance with law, within a period two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and if no liability is fixed or the liability is less than Rs.86,295/- as mentioned in Ext.P3, proportionate amount should also be disbursed to the petitioner without any further delay. (iii). If the petitioner files a representation before the first respondent with regard to the amount due by way of Provident Fund W.P.(C).12792/2007 4 contribution within one month, same shall be looked into and appropriate action taken within two months. (iv). If any liability is fixed on the petitioner by the second respondent and the petitioner does not accept the same, it is open to her to take appropriate steps in relation to that too, in accordance with law. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs