Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.K.ABDUL HAMEED, RETIRED P.D.TEACHER versus THE REGIONAL MANAGER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.K.ABDUL HAMEED, RETIRED P.D.TEACHER v. THE REGIONAL MANAGER - WP(C) No. 23484 of 2006(U) [2007] RD-KL 10982 (22 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 23484 of 2006(U)

1. K.K.ABDUL HAMEED, RETIRED P.D.TEACHER,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
... Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANNUR.

3. THE HEADMASTER, GOVT. U.P.SCHOOL,

4. PRAKASHAN.C.P., POOVALLOYIL HOUSE,

For Petitioner :SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY

For Respondent :SRI.BIJI MATHEW

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :22/06/2007

O R D E R

A.K.BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C)No.23484 OF 2006

Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a retired Primary Department teacher. His grievance is that the amount payable to him as Death Cum Retirement Gratuity is being withheld without any justifiable reasons. The authority concerned is refusing to issue non liability certificate so as to enable him to get the DCRG. It is in the above circumstances, he has filed this writ petition for appropriate reliefs.

2. It is admitted by the petitioner that he had stood as surety for a loan availed of by respondent no.4 from the Regional Office of Kerala State Development Corporation for SC & ST at Kannur. Respondent no.4 had committed default in repayment of the loan. It is seen from Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) that the Corporation had issued notice to respondent no.4 directing him to pay off the debt. But he had failed to do so. At that stage the Corporation had approached the Department with a request to withhold release of DCRG to the petitioner. The department in W.P.(C)No.23484 OF 2006 turn refused to issue non liability certificate.

3. It is pertinent to note that respondent no.1 has explicitly admitted that petitioner had not given any consent in writing to effect recovery from his retiral benefits as provided under Ruling no.1 in Rule 3 of Part III KSR. In view of the above, the refusal on the part of the department to issue non liability certificate to the petitioner cannot be justified at all. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent no.3 shall issue non liability certificate in favour of the petitioner and forward the same to the competent officer within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the same, the officer concerned shall ensure that the amount payable to the petitioner is released to him within one month from the date of receipt thereof. It is made clear that it will be open to respondent no.1 to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law for recovery of the amounts, if any, due from him in his capacity as surety.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

jes


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.