IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34767 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHAMMED KUNJU, S/O.ALIYAR KUNJU, AGED 56 YEARS, RETIRED FROM SERVICE, RESIDING AT MUNEER MANZIL, MUKUNDAPURAM P.O., CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, (RTD.EMPLOYER,KSRTC,KARUNAGAPPALLY). BY ADV. SRI.N.MANU THAMPI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. 2. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. 3. THE ASST. TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC FOR KSRTC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.34767 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a former employee of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the `KSRTC' for short). He retired from service on 31.3.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.29164 of 2010 in this Court seeking out of turn payment of DCRG, contending that he has to clear off the liabilities incurred in connection with the marriage of his only daughter that was solemnized on 23.7.2006. By judgment delivered on 29.11.2010, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to disburse the DCRG within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of that judgment before the respondents, after enquiring into the genuineness of the claim made by the petitioner for out of turn payment overlooking the priority. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a similar direction to the respondents to pay the commuted value of pension contending that his only daughter who was given in marriage way back in 2006 has entered into an agreement with another person for purchasing an item of immovable property, and unless the petitioner renders financial assistance, his daughter will not be in a position to honour the said agreement. In my opinion, the claim made by the petitioner W.P.(C) No.34767/2010 : 2 : cannot be sustained. 2. The petitioner's daughter was given in marriage way back in the year 2006 and it was to clear the liabilities incurred by him in connection with the marriage that he sought and obtained a direction from this Court for out of turn payment of DCRG. At that stage, he had no case that he has to meet the obligations arising out of Ext.P4 agreement. As the petitioner's daughter was given in marriage way back in the year 2006 and is presently depending on her husband, it cannot be said that it is the duty of the petitioner to pay the sale consideration on behalf of his daughter. Further, Ext.P4 agreement cannot be a reason to make out of turn payment of commuted value of pension. The very fact that when the earlier writ petition was filed, the said plea was not raised, itself casts suspicion on the claim of the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the observation that the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the respondents from disbursing the commuted value of pension, as and when the petitioner's turn arises. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.