Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.KAMMARAN, RETD.SOIL CONSERVATION versus THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.KAMMARAN, RETD.SOIL CONSERVATION v. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS - WP(C) No. 24135 of 2003(W) [2007] RD-KL 260 (4 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 24135 of 2003(W)

1. K.KAMMARAN, RETD.SOIL CONSERVATION
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,

3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E),

4. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :04/01/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P. (C) No. 24135 OF 2003 W ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Dated this the 4th day of January, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The petitioner retired from service as a Soil Conservation Officer on 31.1.2001. At that time, a vigilance case was pending against him. Therefore, invoking Rule 3A of Part III of KSR the petitioner was not paid his DCRG. The petitioner filed the writ petition for a direction to the respondents to disburse the DCRG due to the petitioner relying on Ext.P7 Government Order, which stipulated that in case of vigilance enquiry pending at the time of retirement, a preliminary report may be obtained and if the report reveals that it is a long drawn out process, pensionary benefits may be settled and recovery of loss made through revenue recovery or civil proceedings on conclusion of vigilance enquiry. However, in the review petition filed against the interim order passed in the Writ petition, the 1st respondent has produced Ext.R1(a) by which the said order was modified restoring the Rule as obtaining in Rule 3A of Part III of KSR. In the said circumstances, the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this DCRG on furnishing security for the amount in the event of the vigilance case ultimately going against him. WPC.24135/03 2

2. The learned Government Pleader stoutly opposes the prayer. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the writ petition there was actually an order to release the DCRG of the petitioner on the petitioner furnishing security by way of solvency and the State has filed a review petition to review that order. However, that review petition has not been considered yet finally.

3. Considering the submissions on both sides, I am of opinion that it would not be just to direct the petitioner to wait indefinitely to receive his DCRG till the vigilance case is concluded. At the same time, the interest of the State has also to be protected. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents to disburse the DCRG due to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, on the petitioner furnishing security by way of mortgage by deposit of title deeds of properties belonging to either the petitioner or his spouse.

(S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE)

aks


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.