IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 26077 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.PRAKASH, ASWATHY, VAYALAR P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, CHERTHALA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR SRI. ANTONY MUKATHR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.26077 OF 2009 (D) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired from service as Principal Agricultural Officer on 31.12.2007. By Ext.P1 gratuity payment order, petitioner was entitled to get Rs.3,33,000/- towards the DCRG. However, non-liability certificate was not issued by the first respondent and therefore the amount was not paid. It is with this grievance the writ petition is filed. 2. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, Ext.P8 liability certificate was issued by the first respondent indicating the total liability of the petitioner at Rs.30,35,391/-. Ext.P8 is dated 7.10.2009. On its receipt, petitioner submitted Ext.P9 explanation and the matter stands at that stage. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the liability indicated in Ext.P8 liability certificate was not assessed and fixed with notice to him. It is stated that, if so, he is entitled to the benefit of Ruling No.5 to Rule 116 of Part-III KSR and on that basis petitioner seeks an order for payment of the said amount. Ruling No.5 provides that in all cases where liability could not be assessed and fixed before the retirement of the Government WPC.No26077 /09 :2 : employees, should be assessed and adjusted within a period of one year from the date of retirement of the permanent employee and that if, in any case the liability could not be assessed and adjusted within one year the amount withheld from the DCRG should be released. Evidently, the liability as reflected in Ext.P8 was not fixed with notice to the petitioner. Petitioner has retired from service on 31.12.2007 and if so, which means that the one year prescribed in Ruling 5 to Rule 116 has expired. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to have his DCRG released unconditionally. The judgments reported in Sugathan V. Cochin Devaswom Board(2005(1)KLT 46) and State of Kerala V. C.V. Joseph(1994(2)KLJ 359) are relevant in this respect. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is accepting the liability of Rs. 8,858/- and Rs.1,501/- indicated in Ext.P8. Now that the petitioner has accepted the aforesaid liability, it is directed that it will be open to the respondents to realize the admitted liability of Rs.10,359/- from out of the gratuity amount mentioned in Ext.P1 gratuity payment order. The respondents shall release the DCRG due to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. WPC.No26077 /09 :3 : Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the respondents for compliance. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE