IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36660 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DAISY JACOB, U.D.CLERK, STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.D.P.RENU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CULTURAL AFFAIRS (D) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, STATE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DR.P.K.POCKER, DIRECTOR, STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR SC SRI. P.K. VIJAYA KOHANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.36660 OF 2009 (B) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner is a physically handicapped widow working as Upper Division Clerk under the 2nd respondent. Her claim is that she has 50% disability, as per Ext.P10 certificate issued by the Medical Board, Thiruvananthapuram on 12.5.2004. It is the admitted case that the petitioner has received physical disability benefit of Rs.200/- each per month since 2006. It is stated that on the basis that her disability is much less than what is certified in Ext.P10 and relying on Ext.P9 certificate, the authorities have taken steps for recovering the benefits that the petitioner has already received. Her case is that this mala fide action was initiated at the instance of the former Director of the 2nd respondent against whom she had made certain complaints. 3. Irrespective of the factual controversy raised by the parties, it is a fact that in Exts.P9 and P10 disability certificate issued on 25.5.2004 and 12.5.2004 there is wide disparity in the extend of disability certified. Therefore, the question as to WPC.No. 36660/09 :2 : whether the petitioner is liable to refund the amount received and whether the respondents are entitled to recover the amount, will depend upon the extend of disability. This can be done only by a Medical Board. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the Medical Board shall examine the petitioner and certify the disability of the petitioner with reference to the year 2006, from which the petitioner has been receiving benefit, duly adverting to Ext.P9 and P10 referred to above. 4. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 2nd respondent shall address the Medical Board Thiruvananthapuram requiring them to examine and assess the disability of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein above. It is directed that as and when the Medical Board fixes the examination, the petitioner will appear before the Medical Board, which shall issue the certificate to the 2nd respondent, certifying the disability of the petitioner, with copy to the petitioner also. It is directed that the question of recovery or non-payment of the allowance for the disability will depend upon the outcome of the medical examination. It is further directed that until the examination is completed and the certificate is issued WPC.No. 36660/09 :3 : there shall not be any recovery from the petitioner. 5. The contentions of the petitioner regarding the recovery of the amount already paid are left open. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 36660/09 :4 :