IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 24677 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ JAYACHANDRAN H, AGED 57,S/O HARIS, J.G. COTTAGE, PANDARAVILA, KEEZHKOLLA,AMARAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN 695 122, (RETIRED AS CLERK IN L.M.S. HSS, AMARAVILA). BY ADV. SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNT GENERAL; (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURM. 2. HEADMISTRESS, L.M.S. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, AMARAVILLA. 3. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), K.S.F.E. LTD., AKSHYA SHOPPING COMPLEX, NEYYATTINKARA. 4. THE MANAGER, K.S.F.E. LTD., KATTAKADA. 5. J.SALEELA, AGED 59 , D/O SNEHAMANI, AMBAMTHALA VEEDU, VENKAJI,PALAVILA P.O. 629 160 VIA KALLAMCODE, KANYAKUMARI DIST. ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN,SC,K.S.F.E. LTD FOR R3 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 24677 OF 2008 (K) ==================== Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a retired clerk in an aided school. According to him, an amount of Rs.1,10,125 is due to him as DCRG, but is not released so far. While in service, the petitioner stood as one of the sureties for a chitty loan availed of by the 5th respondent, the then Headmistress of the school. It is stated that the 5th respondent had committed default and that the amount was being recovered from the 5th respondent and the other surety. It was while so that the petitioner retired from service. 2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly in Ground A of the writ petition is that he did not consent in writing for recovery from his DCRG as is contemplated in Ruling 1 of Rule 3 of Part III of K.S.R. It was taking note of this specific contention that this Court passed order dated 16/9/2008 directing the 4th respondent to file a statement and produce the consent, which they stated that the petitioner had executed. In pursuance to the said order, though a statement dated 26th September, 2008 has been filed, the consent directed to be produced has not been produced. Further, all that is stated in the statement is that the petitioner had consented to recover the amount WPC 24677/08 :2 : without even stating as to whether it was in writing or not, as is contemplated in the Rules. 3. According to the respondents, even after effecting recovery, an amount of Rs.82,251/- is outstanding, and that, according to them is the reason for not issuing the non liability certificate. Now that the 3rd and 4th respondents have not been able to prove that any consent has been executed by the petitioner, I am constrained to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is nothing in writing authorising recovery from DCRG. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to issue the Non Liability Certificate to the petitioner for the amount, enabling him to receive the DCRG that is due to him. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp