IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 32787 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ M.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, EXTENSION OFFICER, IRD, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM (RETIRED), MEKKARA HOUSE, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (G), DISTRICT OFFICER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU. 4. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.32787/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE B.D.O. KOTHAMANGALAM DT 31.12.2004. EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF the GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER SANCTIONED BY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL DT 23.3.2005. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER SANCTIONED BY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL DT 22.1.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DT 13.3.2006. EXT.P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY TE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO THE B.D.O. ERNAKULAM DT 18.3.2006. EXT.P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER DT 24.6.2006. EXT.P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT 17.7.2006. EXT.P8: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED by the DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT 19.5.2008. EXT.P9: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DT 10.6.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32787 OF 2008 (C) ===================== Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was an Extension Officer working under the IRD Block Development Office, Kothamangalam. As is seen from Ext.P1 relieving order, on attaining the age of superannuation, petitioner retired from service on 31/12/2004. By Exts.P2 and P3, his DCRG of Rs.1,43,819/- was sanctioned. However, NLC was not issued and the amount also was not released. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 2. Counter affidavit filed by the respondents and the instruction of the learned Government Pleader show that the petitioner owes an amount of Rs.1,09,179/- to the Government Servants Co-operative Society, Muvattupuzha and an amount of Rs.80,000/- is due to the Federal Bank, Adimali Branch consequent on the decree passed by the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam in OS 216/2000. It is also stated that an amount of Rs.36,210/- is due to the Devikulam Taluk Government Servants Co-operative Society and Rs.50,857/- based on the audit report of the Accountant General. In addition, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is WPC 32787/08 :2 : stated to be due from the petitioner to the Kothamangalam Main Branch of the Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank. 3. In so far as the liability towards Federal Bank is concerned, it is stated that in the suit, the Bank has already got the amount due attached from the terminal benefits that are due. It is also stated that the petitioner has consented to the aforesaid Co-operative Banks recovering their dues from the petitioner's terminal benefits including gratuity. It is stated that the total amount due to the petitioner is Rs.1,43,819/- and that his total liability at present is more than Rs.3,28,901/-. It is stated that it is therefore that the petitioner did not get the amount released. 4. If as stated by the learned Government Pleader, amount is due to the Financial institutions and Co-operative Banks and the petitioner has executed documents enabling them to recover the same from the terminal benefits and the Bank has obtained attachment from the Civil Court, respondents cannot be faulted for not releasing the benefits. Therefore, this Court will not be justified in granting any relief in this writ petition. 5. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. Petitioner has a complaint that in so far as the liability arisen WPC 32787/08 :3 : under the audit report, he was not put on any notice. Taking into account this, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the BDO, the 1st respondent herein, who shall disclose the details thereof. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp