Sampath.P vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 10809 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
       THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 27TH ASWINA, 1945
                         WP(C) NO. 31215 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

           SAMPATH.P.
           AGED 60 YEARS
           S/O PAZHANIYAPPAN, OTTURTHARA, KALLEPULLY (PO)
           PALAKKAD, PIN - 678005.

           BY ADV U.BALAGANGADHARAN

RESPONDENTS:

     1     STATE OF KERALA,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
           DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.

     2     THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.

     3     PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001.

     4     THE SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY
           PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001.

           SRI. BINOY VASUDEVAN, SC FOR PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION        ON
19.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 31215 OF 2023                   2




                                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner was a sanitation worker under the service of the 3rd

respondent Municipality. He attained superannuation on 31.5.2023 after

having rendered about three decades of service. His grievance is that the

retirement benefits, which include pension, DCRG, Commuted Value of

Pension, Leave Surrender, etc, have not been disbursed. He asserts by

referring to the Ext.P2 discharge summary that his wife is suffering from

renal ailments and is undergoing Hemodialysis four times a week. It is on

these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking the issuance of

directions to the respondents to disburse the retirement benefits due to the

petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the Municipality submits

that they are in dire financial straits and they would require some time to

pay the retirement benefits due to the petitioner herein. The learned

counsel submits that at least four months be granted to disburse the

amount.

3. Having considered the facts and circumstances and in view of

the law laid down by the Apex Court in A. Selvaraj v. CBM College and

ors1, I am of the view that absolutely there is no justification for delaying

(2022) 4 SCC 627

the payment, particularly in the instant case wherein Ext.P2 discloses that

the wife of the petitioner is suffering renal ailments, and she requires

amounts for her treatment.

In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the

respondents to disburse the pension, DCRG, Commuted Value of Pension,

Leave Surrender, etc and other attendant benefits within an outer limit of

six weeks.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE Sru

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31215/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. H2-58081/2012 DATED 31.5.2022 ISSUED BY THE HEALTH SUPERVISOR IN THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P 2 A TRUE COPY OF RECENT DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 9.3.2023 OF THANGAM HOSPITAL, PALAKKAD.