IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE2D DAY OF JULY201411TH ASHADHA, 1936 WA.No. 2818 of 2009 ( ) ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN WP(C) 33503/2004 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED0304-2008 APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS.SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.) SRI.K.T.PAULOSE, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- K.KESAVAN,S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, KOCHUPURAYIL HOUSE, NEDUVARAMKODU P.O., ALA VILLAGE CHENGANNUR TAUK. BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0207-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & ALEXANDER THOMAS, JJ.
================== W.A.No. 2818 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2014
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 3.4.2008 rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No. 33503/2004, whereby the Kerala State Electricity Board was directed to disburse the DCRG (Death Cum Retirement Gratuity) due to the petitioner within one month, the appellant-Kerala State Electricity Board has instituted this intra- court appeal.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The writ petitioner was in the service of the appellant-State Electricity Board. While working as Assistant Engineer at Kottarakkara, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau of the Vigilance Department of the Government of Kerala had registered a crime as VC No.2/2001/ALP on 20.4.2001 under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging that the petitioner had demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000/-. Pursuant w.a.2818/14 - :
2. :- to the registration of this crime, he was suspended from service on 21.4.2001 and thereafter, he was reinstated in service by Ext.P1 order dated 30.2.2002 issued by the appellant-Electricity Board. The petitioner thereafter retired from the service of the Board on superannuation on 31.3.2003. By Ext.P2 dated 1.4.2003 issued by the Transmission Construction Division, Edappal, the Deputy Chief Engineer concerned has been informed that there is no liability outstanding against the petitioner during his incumbency period under that station. By Ext.P3 proceedings dated 2.9.2003, the appellant-Electricity Board has admitted provisional pension with effect from 1.4.2003 and an amount of Rs.2,53,407/- has been authorised as commuted value of pension and further his DCRG amount has been withheld for want of final LPC (Last Pay Certificate) and NLC (Non Liability Certificate). It is further submitted by the petitioner that as per Ext.P7 proceedings dated 29.6.2005, the Chief Engineer of the Electricity Board has directed the Deputy Chief Engineer concerned that the matter should be vigorously pursued so as to get the vigilance enquiry finalised and the NLC issued, as w.a.2818/14 - :
3. :- expeditiously as possible so that withheld DCRG can be released etc. Alleging that no disciplinary proceedings or any other memo in that regard has been initiated and that his DCRG amount has been unlawfully withheld by the Electricity Board, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the aforementioned Writ Petition (Civil) seeking the prayers of mandamus to direct the Electricity Board to disburse the DCRG along with 18% interest and other incidental reliefs.
3. The learned Single Judge held in the impugned judgment rendered on 3.4.2008 that in view of the statutory provisions contained in the Notes 2 and 3under Rule 3 Part III KSR (Kerala Service Rules), the DCRG amount could be withheld only for the purpose of finalisation of liabilities as envisaged in that provision and that pendency of the judicial proceedings cannot be taken as a ground for withholding the DCRG beyond the maximum prescribed period of three years. As the petitioner had retired from service on 31.3.2003, the aforementioned three year outer time limit had expired as early as on 31.3.2006 and hence the learned Single w.a.2818/14 - :
4. :- Judge allowed the prayers of the Writ Petitioner by directing in the impugned judgment that the 1st respondent therein viz., Kerala State Electricity Board, shall disburse the DCRG due to the petitioner within one month. It is this judgment, that is impugned in the present Writ Appeal.
4. Sri.Raju Joseph, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-Board submitted during the course of hearing of this appeal that after the pronouncement of the impugned judgment, the writ petitioner was convicted for the aforementioned offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act by the competent criminal court on 29.8.2009 and that Criminal Appeal No.1890/2009, filed against judgment of the court below, is said to be pending. The main contention urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Board is that though there are no liabilities outstanding against the petitioner and though the allegations in the aforementioned criminal case arising under the Prevention of Corruption Act, are unrelated to any financial loss caused to the Electricity Board inasmuch as the allegations are confined to demand of bribe, that w.a.2818/14 - :
5. :- even for a misconduct, which is not related to any financial loss caused to the employer, proceedings under Rule 3 Part III KSR can be continued against such incumbent even after retirement. In this regard, he contends that the proceedings in that regard either by way of disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings as envisaged in Rule 3 Part III KSR, could validly result in withholding of the pension of the incumbent as per the provisions of that Rule. To fortify this contention that such proceedings under Rule 3 Part III KSR could be even for an allegation of misconduct which does not relate to any financial loss to the employer, the learned senior counsel relies on the ratio decidendi laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Raveendran Nair v. State of Kerala reported in 2007 (1) KLT605(FB), which in turn is based on the decision of the Apex Court in the case Union of India v. B.Dev reported in (1998) 7 SCC691 The learned senior counsel submits that the writ petitioner has already been convicted by the criminal court for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and hence the DCRG, which is part of the pensionary benefits, can be withheld from the petitioner in w.a.2818/14 - :
6. :- view of the provisions contained in Rule 3 Part III KSR.
5. As regards the abovesaid contention of the appellant, it is to be noted that the provisions in Rule 3 Part III KSR and Notes appended thereto reads as follows: "3. The Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement: Provided that - a) such departmental proceedings, if instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the employee, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service; b) such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment,- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the employee during his service; c) no such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted, save with the w.a.2818/14 - :
7. :- sanction of the Government, in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution; and d) the Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation: For the purpose of this rule - a) a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the employee or pensioner or if the employee has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and b) a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted - (i) in the case of a criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of police officer on which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made; and .(ii) in the case of a civil proceeding, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the Court. Note 1.- As soon as proceedings of the nature referred to in this rule are instituted the authority which institutes such proceedings should without delay intimate the fact to the Audit Officer. The amount of pension withheld under this rule should not ordinarily exceed one-third of the pension originally sanctioned. In fixing the amount of pension to be so withheld, regard should be had to the consideration whether the amount of the pension left to the pensioner in any case would be adequate for his maintenance. includeNote 2.- The word 'pension' used in this rule does not death-cum-retirement gratuity. Liabilities fixed against an employee or pensioner can be recovered from the death-cum- retirement gratuity payable to him without the departmental/judicial proceedings referred to in this rule, but after giving the employee or pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity to explain. Note 3.- The liabilities of an employee should be quantified either before or after retirement and intimated to him before retirement if possible or after retirement within a period of three years on becoming pensioner. The liabilities of a pensioner should be quantified and intimated to him." w.a.2818/14 - :
8. :- In the instant case, admittedly no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner prior to his retirement on the basis of the aforementioned allegations. Nor were any disciplinary proceedings within the meaning of Rule 3 have been instituted against him after his retirement. The only contention of the appellant-Board is that judicial proceedings within the meaning of Rule 3 Part III KSR have been instituted against the petitioner and that based on the conviction rendered by the criminal court, the Electricity Board have the right to withhold or withdraw pension or part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period etc. Further it is to be noted that explanation (b) (i) to Rule 3 categorically stipulates that a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted in criminal court on the date on which the complaint or report of the police officer on which Magistrate takes cognisance is made. This means as held by this Court in the case Poulose v. State of Kerala, reported in 1998 (1) KLT117 para 8 that the judicial proceedings in the criminal court as envisaged in Rule 3 shall be deemed to be instituted only on the date on which complaint or w.a.2818/14 - :
9. :- report of police officer as per Sec.173(2) of Cr.P.C., on which the criminal court takes cognizance is made. The petitioner has a specific averment in the Writ Petition filed on 16.11.2004 that no final report has been till then filed in the aforementioned V.C No.2/2001. No counter affidavit is seen filed by the Electricity Board in the Writ Petition. However, it is stated by the appellant Board in para 4 of the memorandum of this Writ Appeal that the aforementioned vigilance case has been taken into the files of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, as C.C.No.67/2004 and that the same was then pending. The exact date on which the final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C has been filed before the said criminal court or the date on which the criminal court has taken cognizance is not clear from the pleadings. Be that as it may, even it is assumed that the judicial proceedings within the meaning of Rule 3 is treated as validly instituted in this case as on the date of the impugned judgment, it is well established from the clear provisions of Notes under Rule 3 Part III KSR that pension as distinct from DCRG alone w.a.2818/14 - :
10. :- can be withheld or withdrawn as per the powers conferred under Rule 3 of Part III KSR. It may be noted that Rule 12(24), KSR Part I defines 'pension' as "Except when the term 'Pension' is used in contradistinction to gratuity or 'Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity', "Pension' includes 'Gratuity' and 'Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity.' " The KSR consists of three parts. Part III thereof deals with pension. Note 2 under Rule 3 of Part III KSR expressly and consciously mandates that the word, 'pension' used in that rule, viz.,Rule 3, does not include Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity. Dealing with this aspect of the matter, a Division Bench of this Court in the case State of Kerala v. Moideen reported in 1999 (1) KLT515 has clearly held in para 10 thereof that, for application of Rule 3 Part III, the pensioner is to be found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service and further that in Note 2 to Rule 3 specifically clarifies that the word, 'pension' used in that rule does not include death-cum-retirement gratuity and so by the applicability of Note 2 to Rule 3, it is not possible for the Government to withhold the DCRG or recovery of the whole or any w.a.2818/14 - :
11. :- part of a pecuniary loss caused to the Government from the DCRG, even if the pensioner is found guilty in departmental or judicial proceedings for grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, as envisaged in Rule 3. The Bench, however, held that Note 2 to Rule 3 further provides that liabilities fixed against an employee or pensioner can be recovered from the DCRG payable to him without departmental/judicial proceedings referred to in Rule 3 after giving the employee or pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity to explain and further that in Note 3 to Rule 3 mandates that such liability of an employee should be quantified either before or after retirement and intimated to him, if possible before retirement or after retirement, but within the period of three years on becoming a pensioner and that the date of becoming a pensioner is a constant factor, viz., the date of attaining the age of superannuation. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case in Aravindaksha Paniker v. Accountant General reported in 2007 (4) KLT1031 has held that the provisions in Rule 3 of Part III KSR treat pension and DCRG differently, though both are broadly classified w.a.2818/14 - :
12. :- under 'retirement benefits' and that rules provide for forfeiture/withholding of pension in part or even in whole in certain circumstances, that rules do not provide for forfeiture of DCRG and that such reduction of the pension or withholding the pension is provided for under the Rules either as a measure of the Government recompensating itself against any pecuniary loss caused by the Government servant or as a measure of punishment itself, the Rules do not provide for forfeiture of DCRG as a punishment or penalty as envisaged in the said Rules and where the Rules provide the liability of the Government servant can be quantified within the time frame and can be adjusted from the DCRG, what is provided is not a forfeiture, but a recognition of the right of the Government Government servant to receive DCRG treating it as his property and when the Government adjusts the liability and recovers it from the DCRG, it is a measure of the Government recovering a loss caused to it and obviously, such recovery is an acknowledgement of the Government servant's title to the DCRG and further that the right of the Government to quantify liability of a Government servant and w.a.2818/14 - :
13. :- adjust it against the DCRG will have to be done within the outer time lime of three years from the date of retirement as mandated in Note 3 to Rule 3 Part III of KSR and that if the determination and quantification of the liability is not done within the abovesaid three year period, then the DCRG cannot be withheld anymore and the same has to be released to the retired Government servant and that this is without prejudice to the right of the Government to initiate separate proceedings against the Government servant before a civil court for recovery of any alleged loss caused by him to the Government as envisaged in Ruling No.6 of Rule 116 of KSR Part III. But exercise of such right is unrelated to the right of the retired servant to get his DCRG.
6. It is by now well established that right to claim retiral or pensionary benefits as per the rules governing the same is enforceable by the pensioner and that the grant of such retiral benefits does not depend upon the discretion of the administrative authorities and that it is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to the service and allied matters that it would w.a.2818/14 - :
14. :- become necessary for the authorities to pass an order to that effect. But that the right to receive such retiral benefits by the retired Government servant is not because of any such order, but by virtue of the rules governing the same. Reference in this connection can be profitably made to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case between D.S.Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC305 Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors, reported in (1971) 2 SCC330and State of Punjab and Another v. Iqbal Singh, reported in (1976) 2 SCC1 This view has been recently reiterated by the Apex Court in its ruling in State of Jharkhand & Others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr, reported in (2013) 12 SCC210 In the aforementioned Deoki Nandan Prasad's case reported in (1971) 2 SCC330 the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court conclusively held in paragraphs 29 to 35 thereof, that the right to receive pensionary or retiral benefits by a Government servant is right to property so as to attract the then existing provisions of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution of India and that the State have no power to withhold the same merely by an w.a.2818/14 - :
15. :- executive order, etc. In the case State of West Bengal v. Haresh C.Banerjee and Ors., reported in (2006) 7 SCC651 the Apex Court held that even after the repeal of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, as per the Forty-Fourth Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978, with effect from 20.6.1979, though the right to property is no longer a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution, but it still is a constitutional right as provided in Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the right to receive retiral benefits is treated as right to property. After scanning the case laws in this regard, the Apex Court in the aforementioned decision in Jitendra Kumar Srivastava's case reported in (2013) 12 SCC210 held that since right to receive retiral or pensionary benefits is right to property as envisaged in Article 300A of the Constitution, a retired Government servant cannot be deprived of this benefit without the authority of law, since Article 300A of the Constitution envisages that persons are not to be deprived of property save by authority of law and that no person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law and that attempt by the State to take away part or w.a.2818/14 - :
16. :- full of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment, without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instructions cannot be countenanced, as executive instructions are not having statutory character and therefore cannot be termed as 'law' within the meaning of Article 300A. On this basis, the Apex Court held therein that on the basis of the administrative circular impugned therein, which is not having the force of law, the State cannot withhold even part of pension or gratuity.
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions and contentions urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant State Electricity Board. True that the departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings for withholding pension as envisaged in Rule 3 Part III KSR can be maintained against the retired Government servant even in respect of an allegation unrelated to pecuniary loss, as held by the Full Bench in Raveendran Nair's case, reported in 2007 (1) KLT605 The Full Bench was concerned with the case involving reduction of monthly pension as a penalty under Rule 3 for misconduct unrelated to financial loss and w.a.2818/14 - :
17. :- not for withholding of DCRG. It is to be noted that the statutory provision in Note 2 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR expressly excludes DCRG from the purview of 'pension' referred to in Rule 3 Part III KSR. So, in other words, departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings envisaged in Rule 3 are totally unrelated to the right of a retired Government servant to receive DCRG due to him. Therefore, the provisions in Rule 3 do not empower the Government to withhold in whole or in part any amount due to a retired Government servant by way of DCRG. This position of law has been amply laid down by the Division Bench in the aforementioned Moideen's case reported in 1999 (1) KLT515 wherein the Bench has clearly held in paragraph 10 thereof that as Note 2 to Rule 3 clarifies that the word, 'pension' used in Rule 3 does not include DCRG, due to the applicability to Note 2 to Rule 3 it is not possible for the Government to withhold DCRG amount or order recovery of the whole or any part of the pecuniary loss caused to the Government from the DCRG etc. Liberty of the Government to quantify and determine liabilities owed by the Government servant and deduct the same from the DCRG has w.a.2818/14 - :
18. :- been made clear in the provisions in Note 2 and Note 3 to Rule 3 Part III KSR. But such liability determination process by taking recourse to those provisions are without taking recourse to the departmental/ judicial proceedings referred to in Rule 3, but after giving the employee or pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity to explain and establish his case in the matter of such alleged liabilities. In the instant case, it is the admitted case of the appellant Board that no liabilities are owed by the Writ Petitioner to the appellant Board. The only case of the appellant is that they have liberty to withhold part or full of the DCRG on account of the conviction of the writ petitioner by the criminal court for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demand of bribe.
8. The Supreme Court has clearly held in D.S.Nakkara's case reported in (1983) 1 SCC350 para 20, that the antiquated notion of retiral or pensionary benefits being a bounty or a gratituous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer, not claimable as a right and, therefore, no enforceable w.a.2818/14 - :
19. :- right to such benefits, has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Deoki Nandan Prasad's case reported in (1971) 2 SCC330and by the subsequent rulings as in Iqbal Singh's case reported in (1976) 2 SCC1 etc. It has to be borne in mind that in view of the well settled position that a retiral benefit like gratuity being a property right as enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution, the right to gratuity or pension can be deprived or forfeited or withheld only by a statutory prescription. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that DCRG cannot be withheld by the appellant Board on account of the judicial proceedings referred to in Rule 3 Part III KSR, as by virtue of Note 2 of Rule 3, the rule making authority has consciously excluded DCRG from the purview and ambit of 'pension' referred to in Rule 3, in contradistinction to the definition of 'pension' contained in Rule 12 (24) of KSR Part I.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench in the case Pappachan v. State of Kerala, reported in 2008 (4) KLT676 On a w.a.2818/14 - :
20. :- reading of the said Bench decision, it is evident that it was a case wherein liabilities were alleged as outstanding against the pensioner therein and the Bench held that the long delay on the part of the petitioner therein in approaching the court dissuaded the court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in his favour on account of such delay and laches and that if the petitioner therein had chosen to approach the court earlier, the court would have normally ordered to pay DCRG due to him. On this basis, the Bench gave liberty to the authorities concerned to institute a civil suit for recovery of the alleged loss caused by the retired Government servant etc. This decision has no application to the facts of this case, since there is no allegation of any pending or non-finalised liabilities against the writ petitioner. The above said Pappachan's case was not dealing with the question of the power to recover DCRG on account of the institution of departmental or judicial proceedings as envisaged in Rule 3.
10. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge was fully right in issuing the impugned w.a.2818/14 - :
21. :- directions to release the full amount of DCRG due to the Writ Petitioner.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Board has also raised an alternative contention that in case it is held that DCRG cannot be withheld on the basis of the judicial proceedings referred to in Rule 3, then the appellant Board has the power to withhold the gratuity by taking recourse to the proceedings envisaged in Rule 2 Part III KSR, as the said Rule does not contain exclusionary clause in respect of DCRG. This ground has not been argued by the appellant Board before the learned Single Judge and there is no such pleading in the Writ Appeal. A reading of Rule 2 makes it clear that the same is engrafted to ensure future good conduct as an implied condition of every grant of pension. In the instant case, the appellant Board decided to withhold only DCRG by invoking their power under Rule 3 on account of the institution of the judicial proceedings for an offence said to have been committed by the writ petitioner while he was in service of the Board. We have already held that DCRG cannot be withheld by invoking the power under Rule 3. In such a case, it is w.a.2818/14 - :
22. :- not permissible for the appellant Board to again attempt to withhold DCRG by invoking the power under Rule 2, which is essentially in the domain of future conduct after the grant of pension and not in relation to past conduct of the Government servant during his tenure in service. Moreover, it is specifically stated by the Full Bench of this Court in Raveendran Nair's case reported in 2007 (1) KLT605 para 10 that Rule 2 empowers the Government to withhold or withdraw pension of a pensioner in respect of a grave misconduct committed after he became a pensioner. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that any invocation of such power would be ultra vires and amount to colourful exercise of power, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
12. We note that the pleadings and arguments from both sides in this case are on the basis that the writ petitioner has claimed gratuity on the basis of the provisions in the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) Part III. The appellant Board has not raised any pleadings or arguments that the writ petitioner has claimed gratuity as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and that the w.a.2818/14 - :
23. :- provisions of Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 regarding forfeiture of gratuity for termination from service for the misconducts enumerated therein or for termination from service consequent on conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude, as referred to therein will apply in this case. Hence we are not considering any such aspects in this appeal. But we also note that the writ petitioner has been allowed to superannuate from service and that the appellant Board has not terminated his service on account of any misconduct or criminal offence as envisaged in Section 4(6) of the said Act.
13. Accordingly, we hold that there is no infirmity or error of law in the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in the above Writ Petition (Civil) and hence the same does not warrant any interference in this intra court appeal. We affirm the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and accordingly, dismiss this Writ Appeal. As the writ petitioner has retired from service as early as on 31.3.2003 and as the impugned judgment was rendered on 3.4.2008, we direct that w.a.2818/14 - :
24. :- the appellant Board shall disburse the DCRG amount due to the petitioner within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Sd/- sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS , JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge