IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 9971 of 2010(V) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- B.VIMALA, PARAKONATHU HOUSE, THEMBAMUTTAM, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. K.ANANDAVALLY, R.R.BHAVAN, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. 3. RENJINI RAJ, R.R.BHAVAN, NADUVATHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL MR.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR R2 & R3 BY ADVS.MR.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS & MR.MURALI MADANTHACODU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9971 of 2010 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of the proceedings of the Director of Urban Affairs of the 1st respondent, dated 25.9.06. Ext.P2 :- Copy of the award passed by the Lok Adalath dated 12.10.09. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL //True Copy// P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No.9971 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 2nd day of August 2010 J U D G M E N T Complaint in the writ petition is regarding the delay on the part of the 1st respondent in carrying out the directions in Ext.P2 award. 2. One Sri.K.Varadarajan was working as Health Inspector in the 1st respondent Corporation. It would appear that Varadarajan had two wives and a daughter in first wedlock. It would also appear that he was compulsorily retired and his whereabouts were unknown. 3. There were disputes between the first wife and the daughter on the one side and the petitioner on the other side. This issue was raised before this Court in W.P.(C)No.10478 of 2009 filed by the first wife and the daughter. By Ext.P2 Award passed by the Lok Adalath, the parties entered into a settlement, whereby the petitioner is entitled to 35% of the W.P.(C) No.9971 of 2010 -: 2 :- terminal benefits and family pension. This award has become final and the disputes were settled in the above manner. Complaint now is that the Corporation has not disbursed the benefit so far. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondents have no dispute about the binding nature of the Ext.P2 award. If that be so, there is no reason why the Corporation should not disburse the amounts in terms of Ext.P2 award. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to disburse the benefits due to the petitioner in terms of Ext.P2 award of the Lok Adalath. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Jvt