IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WA.No. 2132 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.17521/2006 Dated 07/10/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ P.V.GOPINATHAN, S/O.P.J.VENKITESWARA MALLIA, PARARATHU PARAMBIL, SRINGAPURAM, KODUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SMT.RUKHIYABI MOHD KUNHI RESPONDENT(S): /RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. MR.ASOK M.CHERIAN, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ---------------------------------- W.A.No.2132 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board. 2. Challenge in the Writ Appeal is against adjustment of gratuity by the KSEB against liability due to it. The appellant, who is a retired employee of the KSEB, was found to be retaining materials belonging to the KSEB, the cost of which was sought to be recovered from him. Even though the appellant challenged recovery proceedings before the Lok Ayukta and before this Court in the Writ Petition, the amount determined as payable to the KSEB, the employer of the appellant, was not contested. The challenge was only on technical ground that liability cannot be fixed beyond one year from the date of retirement. In this case, liability was W.A.No.2132/2010 -2- determined beyond one year but was within three years. The learned Single Judge, who considered all relevant Rules, has found that within three years of retirement liability could be determined and recovered, no matter DCRG benefit could not have been withheld beyond one year from the date of retirement. The learned Single Judge has specifically referred the provision for getting bond executed for release of the DCRG, which is only to secure payment from retired employee after retirement. We do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) jg