IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 36455 of 2010(F) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- J.JAYA, W/O. RAJU.M., KARIMPINKUZHY VEEDU, ANI GARDENS, MANALAYAM, KODUNGANNOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP.BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695023. 2. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO.OP.BANK, REP.BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695023. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC., K.S.R.T.C. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.36455 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed by the widow of a retiree from the service of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') for an out of turn disbursement of the retiral benefits. Disbursement of retiral benefits under the Corporation is being governed by the directions issued by this Court in W.A.No.289/2001. Any deviation from the same is permissible only in exceptional circumstances. To substantiate the contention that there exists exceptional circumstances warranting deviation from the directions issued by this Court in W.A.No.289/2001, the petitioner has produced Ext.P4. Ext.P4 dated 1.3.2010 would reveal that the second respondent Bank had issued notice to the petitioner demanding payment of Rs.3,82,099/-. The petitioner apprehends coercive steps from the part of the second respondent. It is in the said circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed seeking an out of turn disbursement of retiral benefits. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. In view of Ext.P4, W.P.(C) NO.36455/2010 2 I am of the view that the genuineness of the claims and contentions raised by the petitioner requires to be enquired by the competent authority under the Corporation. On such enquiry, if it is found that the requests and reasons stated by the petitioner are genuine, the respondents shall sanction the DCRG and remit the amount payable by the petitioner towards second respondent Bank in terms of Ext.P4 for the purpose of discharging her liability towards the said bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to get certain amount under the Staff Welfare Fund. After the institution of this Writ Petition, the respondents have disbursed the Family Pension with arrears and Provident Fund to the petitioner. Therefore, there will be a further direction to the first respondent to take appropriate steps for disbursing the amount due under the Staff Welfare fund to the petitioner. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from today. This Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.36455/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.36455/2010 4