IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11010 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.BALAKRISHNAN S/O. LATE KUMARAN NAIR, 3/37, VENI NAGAR, UDUMALAI ROAD, POLLACHI. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.P.NANDAKUMAR, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.11010/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF GO(Rt.) NO.37/97/VIG. DATED 18/02/1997. P2 : COPY OF REPORT OF TRANSFER OF CHARGE, WHEREBY THE PETITIONER WAS RELIEVED FROM THE POST OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SIRUVANI PROJECT CIRCLE, PALAKKAD DATED 20/2/1997. P3 : COPY OF G.O.(Rt.) NO.764/99/IrD. DATED 16/6/1999 OF R3. P4 : COPY OF GO(Rt.) 1313/2000/IRD DATED 18/10/2000. P5 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16/8/2001 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P.NO.30227/2000. P6 : COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.R.O.NO.553/2007 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P7 : COPY OF LETTER NO.P-06/PenA/1755/01/00-01/721 DATED 8/11/2000 OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P8 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 10/06/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R3. P9 : COPY OF LETTER NO.VG 7/1380/97 DATED 6/10/2008 ADDRESSED TO R2 WITH COPY TO THE PETITIONER. P10 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 16/3/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2. P11 : COPY OF G.O.(Rt.) NO/3614/05/FIN DATED 3/5/2005. P12 : COPY OF ORDER NO.INVN/F2/984/2000/WRD DATED 30/06/2003. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.11010 of 2009 (U) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was working as Superintending Engineer in the Irrigation Department. He was arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.1/97 registered by the Vigilance Department alleging offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the case was charge sheeted before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Calicut as CC No.2/99. 2. Following his involvement in the case, by Ext.P1 order dated 18/02/1997, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Subsequently, by Ext.P3 order dated 16/06/1999, he was reinstated in service. 3. According to the petitioner, he applied to the Trial Court for discharge. On its rejection, he challenged the said order before this Court in Crl. Revision Petition No.553/2007. By Ext.P6 judgment dated 21/05/2008, this Court allowed his revision and the petitioner has been discharged from the case. It is stated that WP(C) No.11010/2009 -2- although SLP (Crl.) No.7931/2008 has been filed by the State before the Apex Court, the Apex Court has not stayed the said order. 4. In this writ petition, the grievances of the petitioner is that he is paid only provisional pension and therefore he seeks a direction to the respondents to pay him DCRG and Commuted Value of Pension regularising his suspension. He also prays that since inordinate delay has caused in settling terminal benefits, he is entitled to be paid interest. 5. The petitioner also makes reference to Ext.P11 Government order dated 03/05/2005, by which, sanction has been accorded for payment of DCRG to one Smt.Leelamani Amma, Chief Engineer (Retired). Going by the averments made in paragraph 13 of the writ petition, she was his co-accused in the criminal case and her involvement is also stated in Ext.P1 order. It is also stated that having regard to the fact that Ext.P6 judgment has not been stayed by the Apex Court, and Smt.Leelamani Amma, who is a co-accused in the criminal case, has been paid DCRG, there is no reason why the petitioner should be discriminated. 6. In the counter affidavit filed, the only justification offered WP(C) No.11010/2009 -3- by the respondents in not settling the terminal benefits due to the petitioner is the pendency of the SLP before the Apex Court against Ext.P6 judgment. However, it is to be noticed that the respondents have no case that Ext.P6 has been stayed or reversed by the Apex Court. That apart, there is no explanation forthcoming in regard to the payment made to Smt.Leelamani Amma as per Ext.P11 order. 7. As far as the petitioner is concerned, his suspension by Ext.P1 order was only on account his involvement in Crime No.1/97, which was subsequently charge sheeted as CC No.2/99. As a result of Ext.P6 judgment in Crl.R.P.No.553/2007, the petitioner now stands discharged from the criminal case. This judgment has not been stayed by the Apex Court. It is also to be mentioned that in Ext.P5 judgment rendered by this Court in O.P.No.30227/2000 filed by the petitioner claiming promotion as Chief Engineer this Court clarified that if the petitioner is eventually acquitted, he will be entitled to all consequential benefits. Now that the petitioner stands acquitted by way of discharge as per Ext.P6 judgment, he is entitled to all consequential benefits. 8. In view of this, this writ petition is disposed of directing WP(C) No.11010/2009 -4- that DCRG, Commuted Value of Pension and other benefits, if any, due to the petitioner shall be disbursed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months of production of a copy of this judgment. It is also directed that he shall be paid full pension, regularising his suspension. The same also shall be quantified and disbursed to him within the aforesaid period. True, the petitioner has a case that he shall be paid interest on belated payment of the terminal benefits. However, fact remains that Ext.P6 judgment allowing the revision petition filed by the petitioner was rendered only on 21/05/2008. He could not have claimed the benefit any time prior to that. Therefore, I do not see that any inordinate or culpable delay is caused justifying payment of interest. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg