Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.K.ABDUL MAJEED versus JOINT DIRECTOR, K.E.R.I

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.K.ABDUL MAJEED v. JOINT DIRECTOR, K.E.R.I - WP(C) No. 26000 of 2006(T) [2007] RD-KL 3419 (15 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 26000 of 2006(T)

1. C.K.ABDUL MAJEED,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. JOINT DIRECTOR, K.E.R.I,
... Respondent

2. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION PROJECTS I,

3. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND

4. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E),

For Petitioner :SRI.VIJU THOMAS

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :15/02/2007

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J

W.P.(C)NO.26000 of 2006

Dated this the 15th day of February, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner retired from the post of Ist Grade Overseer, Public Works department on 28.2.1994. Sanction was accorded for payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity on 1.1.1997. The amount determined as per Ext.P2 order is Rs.24,938/=. This amount was not paid. It appears that some correspondence was pending interse the respondents.

2. Government Pleader submits that the last pay certificate was issued only on 3.3.1998 and the non-liability certificate instead of being forwarded to the head of the Department and to the Treasury was wrongly forwarded to the Accountant General. This also contributed to delay in disbursing the death cum retirement gratuity.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that without sufficient reasons or justifications, payment of DCRG was delayed. The W.P.(C)No.26000/2006 :2: petitioner, is therefore, not only entitled for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the sum of Rs.24,938/= without any further delay, but also for interest at reasonable rate with effect from 1.3.1997. The respondents cannot take up the stand that after the expiry of the period of three years, there exists conceivable reasons for not paying the amount to the petitioner.

4. I find merit in the contention urged by the counsel for the petitioner. There is no valid reason or justification for the delay in disbursing the death-cum-retirement gratuity to the petitioner.

5. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to see that the sum of Rs.24,938/- is paid to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In the light of the facts which are beyond dispute, there shall be a declaration that the petitioner will be entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum for Rs.24,938/= from 1.3.1997 till actual payment of that amount. The interest shall be worked out and paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that the amount thus paid towards interest can be recovered after due W.P.(C)No.26000/2006 :3: notice from respondents 1 to 3 collectively or individually or from any other officer who is found to be responsible for the delay caused in the matter of disbursement of DCRG.

K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE

css / W.P.(C)No.26000/2006 :4:


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.