Subramanyan P vs The Palakkad Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 4191 Ker

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

           THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942

                           WP(C).No.20311 OF 2020(L)


PETITIONER:

                 SUBRAMANYAN P.
                 AGED 63 YEARS
                 S/O. PAZHANAN, RETIRED SANITATION WORKER, PALAKKAD
                 MUNICIPALITY, RESIDING AT VALIBHAVANAM, HOUSE NO. 22/346,
                 COIMBATORE ROAD, SELVAPALAYAM, KALMANDAPAM,PALAKKAD 600 013,
                 MOB 9745697711.

                 BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

RESPONDENTS:

       1         THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY
                 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD-678 001

       2         THE SECRETARY,
                 PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD-678 001

       3         THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS,
                 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

       4         THE STATE OF KERALA,
                 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVT.
                 DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

                 BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN-SC

OTHER PRESENT:

                 SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.20311 OF 2020(L)

                                   2




                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a

direction to the 2nd respondent - the Secretary of Palakkad

Municipality to sanction and disburse his DCRG of Rs.7,61,805/-

forthwith. He also prays that Ext.P3 notice issued to him by the

Municipality, asking him to remit an amount of Rs.99,000/-,

being the rent payable for the quarters occupied by him, be set

aside and that this amount be directed not to be deducted from

his retiral benefits.

2. In response, Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, learned Standing

Counsel for Palakkad Municipality, submitted that except the

amount mentioned in Ext.P3, namely Rs.99,000/-, the full

amount of retiral benefits of the petitioner has already been

disbursed. He submitted that, as far as Rs.99,000/- is concerned,

this is the rent that the petitioner ought to have paid for the

quarters that he had occupied for more than two years after he

had retired and therefore, that an audit objection has been

raised against the same. The learned Standing Counsel prayed

that, therefore, this writ petition be dismissed.

3. Sri.U.Balagangadharan, learned counsel appearing WP(C).No.20311 OF 2020(L)

for the petitioner, submitted that retention of Rs.99,000/-, as

mentioned in Ext.P3, by the Municipality is illegal, since there

has been no quantification of the same and that the allegation

that he had illegally occupied the quarters, is also not admitted.

He therefore, reiteratingly prayed that this amount also be now

directed to be paid by the Municipality.

4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is obvious

that all that now remains in dispute between the parties is the

amount of Rs.99,000/-, mentioned in Ext.P3. The Municipality

says that this amount represents the rent that was payable by

the petitioner for the period when he illegally occupied the

quarters; while the petitioner says that there has been no proper

quantification and that the figure has been arrived at by the

Municipality unilaterally.

5. I am, therefore, of the view that unless the

Municipality quantifies the amount in terms of law, after

affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the

said amount cannot be retained by them.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition to the limited extent

of directing the Municipality to hear the petitioner and make an WP(C).No.20311 OF 2020(L)

adjudication as to the amounts mentioned in Ext.P3 and quantify

the same in terms of law, after notifying the petitioner

appropriately.

Needless to say, depending upon the decision to be

arrived at through the afore exercise, the Municipality shall

release the withheld amount or such of its portion, if found

eligible to the petitioner, without any further delay thereafter.

SD/-

                                          DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

rp                                                  JUDGE
 WP(C).No.20311 OF 2020(L)






                                   APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 27.2.2017 ISSUED BY

THE HEALTH SUPERVISOR UNDER SECOND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF PENSION PAYMENT ORDER BOOK ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER (RELEVANT PAGES)

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF FINAL NOTICE DATED 6.4.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.09.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 27.4.2020 ISSUED BY THE LAKSHMI HOSPITAL, PALAKKAD.