IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 3652 of 2009(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.KANNAN, RETD. INSPECTOR KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KASARGODE, MEETHAL VALAPPIL HOUSE,KARIPPADI,BAKEL. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR TIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 3652 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 31st March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a retired employee of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. In this writ petition, he seeks interest on his DCRG and commutted value of pension on the ground that the same were paid belatedly. According to the petitioner, he retired from service on 30-6-2001 and the retirement benefits were paid on 5-6- 2004. The petitioner seeks interest for the period from 30-6-2001 to 5-6-2004. 2. Learned standing counsel for the Corporation submits that the Corporation is paying DCRG and commutted value of pension due to retired employees of the Corporation on the basis of the scheme framed by the Division Bench of this Court, according to priority. Learned standing counsel submits that DCRG and commutted value of pension due to the petitioner were paid to him immediate when his turn came in accordance with the date of priority of retirement as per the scheme framed by this Court. He further submits that the scheme framed by this Court does not envisage payment of interest for such delayed payment. 3. Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the DCRG and commutted value of pension due to the petitioner had been paid as and when his turn came in accordance with the scheme. In the above circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner can claim interest in so far as the scheme framed by this Court does not envisage payment of interest on the delayed payment. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.