IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15212 of 2011(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. C.N.LEELA, NIRAPPIL HOUSE, POOZHIKKAD MURI, KURAMPALA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, (WIDOW OF K.RAGHAVAN, RETIRED CONTIGENT WORKER, MAVELIKARA MUNICIPALITY). 2. M.T.KESAVAN, MELETHOYIKKOTTU, KOZHUVALLUR (PO), CHENGANNUR TALUK, (RETIRED CONTIGENT WORKER, MAVELIKARA MUNICIPALITY) BY ADVS. SRI. K. SASIKUMAR SMT. T. SUDHA DEVI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. MAVELIKARA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MAVELIKARA - 695 101. 2. DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAURAM - 695 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI. K. HARILAL, SC, MAVELIKARA MUNICIPALITY R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 15212 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-09-2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALLOWING FAMILY PENSION TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 20-9-2010 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, ADOOR. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 5-10-10 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-10-2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.15212 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner is the widow of Sri. K.Raghavan, a contingent employee of the 1st respondent Municipality who retired from service on 30.09.2008 and died on 15.08.2009. After retirement, he was not paid his retirement benefits except monthly pension. The 1st petitioner has received subsequently DCRG and terminal leave surrender benefits. But Provident Fund, Commuted Value of Pension, D.A. Arrears, Group Insurance etc. have not been released to the petitioner. The 2nd petitioner retired from service of the 1st respondent Municipality as a contingent worker on 31.10.2010 and he has not received any retirement benefits, except monthly pension. In the above said circumstances the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to pay all the terminal benefits such as Provident Fund, Commutation Value of Pension, D.A. W.P.(C)No.15212 of 2011 -2- Arrears, Group Insurance benefits etc., due to the 1st petitioner on account of the death of her husband pensioner from 1st respondent's service, immediately; ii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to pay all the terminal benefits such as Provident Fund, Death Cum Retirement Gratuity benefit, Commuted Value of Pension, D.A. Arrears both of service and pension, Group Insurance benefits etc., to the petitioner immediately; iii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay penal interest at market rate on the delay caused in payment of terminal benefits due to the petitioners. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent wherein the contention taken is as follows: “3) With regard to the 1st petitioner, all pensionary benefits were given except provident fund, pension commutation benefits and D.A. Arrears. Provident fund was delayed due to non-production of Death Certificate and succession certificate, inspite of repeated request. At last the 1st petitioner produced these certificates on 20.6.2011 and immediately the same was forwarded to the concerned authority. The deceased Raghavan has opted pension commutation. Since the 1st petitioner is receiving full family pension and pension commuted amount is not recoverable from the family pension, the eligibility to get the commuted pension amount is a matter which requires clarification from the Local Fund Deputy Director. The request for the same from this office is pending before the Local Fund Deputy Director from 8.10.2010. 4) With regard to 2nd petitioner monthly pension granted from 1.11.2010. Provident Fund also was given and papers relating to Group Insurance were sent to Life Insurance Corporation. DCRG, Pension Commutation benefit, D.A. Arrears and Terminal Leave Surrender benefits are due to the petitioner. 5) It is submitted that 1st respondent is unable to disburse the remaining pensionary benefits forthwith, due to acute financial crisis. 1st respondent Municipality is a third W.P.(C)No.15212 of 2011 -3- grade Municipality depending mainly on tax collection and tax revision has not been effected since 1992. The Municipality is suffering too much to meet monthly expenses, including salary of the employees. The salary of this month was given on 10.6.2011 only. Pay revision arrear of the employees has not been disabused so far. Cases filed by the retired employees for pensionary benefits have been culminated to Contempt of Court cases against the Municipality due to the lack of funds. D.A. Arrears granted for the year 2004, has not been remitted so far. Monthly pension is being given to 80 retired employees. Thus there is not willful laches or negligence in causing the delay.” 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As far as the question of disbursal of commuted value of pension to the 1st petitioner is concerned, I do not think that there is any scope for clarification by the Local Fund Deputy Director as claimed in the counter affidavit. I am supported in this view by Rule 7 of Appendix X of Part III of KSR which reads as follows: 7. If the pensioner dies on or after the days on which commutation became absolute but before receiving the commutation value, this value shall be paid to his heirs. Admittedly, the commuted value of pension has already been sanctioned and the pension paid to the husband of the 1st petitioner was only the reduced pension. That being so, the petitioner is entitled to the commuted value of pension already sanctioned. It is not necessary for the Municipality W.P.(C)No.15212 of 2011 -4- to seek any clarification in that regard from the Local Fund Deputy Director. Likewise there is no justification for not disbursing the retirement benefits to the 2nd petitioner also. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to see that the entire balance terminal benefits due to the petitioners are disbursed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/