IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 17842 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.RAJENDRAN, RETIRED HEALTH INSPECTOR GRADE-1, 35/1524A, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-682025 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, TRIVANDRUM 2. THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, COCHIN 4. THALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------- W.P.(C).17842/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner retired from service as Health Inspector Grade-I on 31.12.2007 while he was serving in the Taliparamba Municipality. He was promoted to the said post while he was working as Health Inspector Grade- II in the Corporation of Cochin. On promotion as Health Inspector Grade-I, he was relieved from the Cochin Corporation on 8.10.2007 and thereafter, he joined duty in the Taliparamba Municipality. It was while he was serving in the Thaliparamba Municipality that the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner has in this writ petition prayed for the following relief:- To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the third respondent to forward the pension papers to the 1st respondent and to direct the 1st respondent to sanction and release the pensionary benefits to the W.P.(C).17842/2008 2 petitioner with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of realization of the amount. 2. The petitioner contends that notwithstanding the proceedings evidenced by Ext.P2, respondents 3 and 4 have not forwarded his pension papers to the first respondent. A statement has been filed on behalf of the third respondent stating that a sum of Rs.10,000/- is outstanding as the petitioner's liability and that as the petitioner has not obtained a non-liability certificate, the pension papers could not be forwarded to the first respondent. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit controverting the said allegation. He has produced Exts.P4 and P5 series to contend that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was expended by him for the purpose of fogging. The fourth respondent has filed a statement to the effect that the last pay certificate of the petitioner was forwarded to the Director of Urban Affairs on 11.4.2008 and that the fourth respondent has acted promptly in forwarding the pension papers of the W.P.(C).17842/2008 3 petitioner to the Director of Urban Affairs. It is also stated that the service register of the petitioner and the Non Liability Certificate were forwarded to the Corporation of Cochin on 29.3.2008. 3. I have heard Sri.K.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.M.R.Sreelatha, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri.K.Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, and Sri.P.V.Surendranath, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. From the statement filed by the fourth respondent, it is evident that no amount is due from the petitioner to the fourth respondent. It is also evident from the statement filed on behalf of the third respondent that the third respondent has not forwarded the pension papers of the petitioner to the first respondent for the reason that a sum of Rs.10,000/- is outstanding from the petitioner. There is however no pleading or proof to the effect that the said sum has been W.P.(C).17842/2008 4 fixed as the petitioner's liability in a duly instituted proceedings either before or after the petitioner retired from service. There is also no other claim against the petitioner. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of by directing the third respondent to forward the pension papers of the petitioner to the first respondent together with the service register and the Non Liability Certificate issued by the fourth respondent, within one month from today. It will be open to the third respondent to inform the first respondent that steps are underway to fix the sum of Rs.10,000/- as the liability of the petitioner. The first respondent shall on receipt of the pension papers from the third respondent, issue orders fixing the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner. Orders in that regard shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The first respondent shall in the said order indicate that payment of the sum of Rs.10,000/- from the death-cum-retirement gratuity W.P.(C).17842/2008 5 payable to the petitioner shall depend upon the final decision taken by the third respondent, Corporation in the matter of fixing the petitioner's liability. The disbursement of the retirement benefits, except the sum of Rs.10,000/-, as mentioned above, shall be made within a period of two months, after the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner are determined by the first respondent. It is made clear that the third respondent will be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner for fixing the sum of Rs.10,000/- as his liability. This shall be done with notice to the petitioner and proceedings in that regard shall be concluded within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The payment of the sum of Rs.10,000/- withheld from the retirement benefits, by this judgment to the petitioner, will depend upon the outcome of the said proceedings. In the event of the third respondent, Corporation, finding that the petitioner is not liable to make good the sum of Rs.10,000/-, the said sum shall also be disbursed to him. W.P.(C).17842/2008 6 If the Corporation finds that the petitioner is liable for the said sum, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the fixation of liability in other appropriate proceedings. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs