IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36519 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VINCENT M.D., RETIRED ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D., MANJALY HOUSE, VENDORE, ALAGAPPA NAGAR P.O., THRISSUR 680 302. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS AND BRIDGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 36519 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.8.09 ISSUED BY THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.4/06 FILED BEFORE THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.5/06 FILED BEFORE THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. DATED 28.2.09 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 23.4.09 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.6.09 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.9.09 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).36519/2009 ....................... Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner retired as Assistant Executive Engineer from the Public Works Department on 30.11.2008. 2. His grievance is regarding non disbursement of Commuted Value of Pension and the DCRG. According to th petitioner, an amount of Rs.4,44,010/- has been sanctioned towards CVP and an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- towards DCRG. It is stated that these amounts are not disbursed on account of the pendency of two vigilance cases as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 FIR's. 3. Learned counsel points out that the loss allegedly caused to the Government and mentioned in Ext.P2 is only Rs.18,672/- and the loss alleged in Ext.P3 is Rs.27,832/- On this basis, it is contended that the pendency of the proceedings is not a justification to withhold the entire benefits that are due to him. W.P.(C).36519/09 2 4. As contended by the learned Government Pleader pendency of vigilance cases may be a reason for non disbursement of benefits. But in this case, the loss that has been allegedly suffered by the Government is indicated in Exts.P2 and P3 and therefore, there is no reason for withholding anything more than the alleged loss indicated in Exts.P2 and P3 FIRs. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. That the CVP and the DCRG as already sanctioned, shall be disbursed to the petitioner after withholding an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the liability mentioned in Exts.P2 and P3. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs