IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 9493 of 2009(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- V.N.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, KUDAYATHOOR P.O., KOLAPARA, THODUPUZHA, PIN-685 590. BY ADVS. MR.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH, MR.T.D.SALIM, MR.C.S.YESUDAS, MR.PAUL C THOMAS. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. COMMISSIONER LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKY. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.9493/2009 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.LOR-D6-38638/03 DTD. 23/09/2003. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 27/11/03. P3: COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.1813/04/RD DTD. 11/04/2004. P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 05/07/2004. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.22/01/2005. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09/08/2008. P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 01/11/08. P8: COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.185/2002 DTD. 27/03/2002. P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 08/06/07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.9493 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who retired as a Senior Superintendent from the Taluk Office, Idukki, has filed this writ petition complaining that his DCRG and other retirement benefits have not been paid to him till date. While working as Deputy Tahsildar in Devikulam Taluk, the petitioner was suspended from service on 23.9.2003, on the allegations of various irregularities. However, no action was taken thereafter to complete the proceedings against him. He, therefore filed WP(C)37382 of 2003 and by judgment dated 27.11.2003, this court directed the Government to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner. Though the petitioner was heard, pursuant to the judgment of this court, his request for reinstatement was rejected. 2. The petitioner then filed WP(C)19581 of 2004 challenging the order rejecting his representation. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court directing the second respondent therein to complete the investigation within six months and to reinstate the petitioner if the Wpc 9493/2009 2 investigation was not completed within the stipulated time. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated on 22.1.2005. Subsequently, the petitioner retired on 31.1.2008. However, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are still not completed. In view of the above, the petitioner has been sanctioned only provisional pension as per Ext.P6. According to the authorities, the terminal benefits would be disbursed to him only on completion of the enquiry that was pending against him. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, since this court had directed the proceedings to be completed within six months, the authorities should have adhered to the said time limit. Since they have not completed the proceedings, though sufficient time was granted, they have no right to withhold his retiral benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that this court has, in a similar situation, by Ext.P9 judgment, directed the retiral benefits to be disbursed. 4. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that as per G.O.(P) 803/02 dated 30.12.2008, the Government had ordered that pensionary benefits of employees against whom judicial proceedings are pending can be finally settled only after disposal of the case because one cannot certify that service of the employee was Wpc 9493/2009 3 satisfactory, before final judgment is pronounced. The above statement is sought to be met by the counsel for the petitioner by pointing out that no judicial proceedings are pending against the petitioner. Only an enquiry is remaining incomplete. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a similar direction as in Ext.P9 judgment. 5. The counsel for the petitioner also relies on the decision in Rajagopalan R.V. Travancore Devaswom Board(ILR 2007(2) Kerala 401) as well as the decision in Aravindaksha Panicker V. Accountant General (2007(4) KLT 1031) to submit that in similar cases, directions to disburse the pensionary benefits have been granted. The counsel has also placed before me the judgment dated 5.6.2007 in WP(C) 19907 of 2006. 6. I have heard the contentions of the counsel on either side. I have also considered the contentions anxiously. 7. It is not disputed that though the petitioner has retired on 31.1.2008, the disciplinary enquiry pending against him is still remaining incomplete. In the counter affidavit also, what is stated is only that a case was going to be filed before the Vigilance Court. Therefore, in spite of the positive direction issued by this court, the fact Wpc 9493/2009 4 remains that the proceedings have only dragged on. The petitioner has not been found to have caused any loss to the Government or committed any irregularity. Though his suspension was on 23.9.2003, it is stated that the alleged irregularity relates to the year, 1997-98. Therefore, there is no justification for not releasing the terminal benefits due to the petitioner on the ground that a Vigilance Enquiry is pending. 8. I am in respectful agreement with the dictum in Rajagopalan's case (supra) and other judgments of this court relied on by the petitioner. There are no grounds for denying the petitioner, a similar direction. 9. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the terminal benefits due to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this direction will not affect the powers of the competent authority to proceed against the petitioner to recover any loss that may be found to have been caused by him to the State. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk