IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 372 of 2011(V) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.MADHUSOODANAN NAIR, (SUPERINTENDENT, KSRTC, CHIEF OFFICE, RTD. ON 31.3.2010), PRANAVAM, AMBALATHINKALA P.O., KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI. V.V. NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 372 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed mainly with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse pensionary benefits including DCRG, Commuted value of pension etc. The petitioner retired from the service of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation(for short 'Corporation')on 31.3.2011. Admittedly, in the matter of disbursement of retiral benefits under the Corporation is being governed by a direction issued by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 289/2001. An out of turn disbursement of retiral benefits is possible and permissible only in exceptional circumstances. To contend that there exists a exceptional circumstance, the petitioner has produced Exts.P2 and P3. Ext.P2 would reveal that the marriage of the petitioner's daughter was solemnized as early as on 19.10.2008 viz., much prior to the retirement of the petitioner from service. Ext.P3 is the reminder issued to the petitioner by the Katakkada branch of Bank of India. It is issued in respect of the loan account No.43014. It says thus: WPC.372/2011 : 2 : “This is to inform you that your above mentioned account is running out of order by Rs.2,67,643/- as on date” There is nothing in Ext.P3 which would show that coercive steps were taken against the petitioner for realisation of the amount towards the said loan account. As already noticed hereinbefore, since the disbursement of the retiral benefits is being governed by the directions in Writ Apeal No. 289/2001, in the absence of an exceptional circumstance, I do not think that it is permissible to direct the respondent to deviate from the specific directions issued by this Court and to disburse the benefits on an out of turn basis in deviation of its directions. The petitioner has not brought any exceptional circumstance though more ten times this writ petition has been adjourned for that purpose. There is no merit in the contentions raised in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, it is made clear dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner in case of initiation of coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of the loan amount or any other genuine reasons, to approach this Court. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge