IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 27461 of 2006(T)
1. PARAMESWARAN NAIR. M.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT
... Respondent
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SIDCO R.M.DIVISION
For Petitioner :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :18/10/2006
O R D E R
K.K. DENESAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No.27461 OF 2006 T
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 18th October, 2006
J U D G M E N T
Heard Advocate O.D. Sivadas, counsel for the petitioner
and Advocate M.A. Manhu for the respondents.
2. This Court had occasion to consider similar
grievances in writ petitions filed by the former employees
of the respondents. Those cases were disposed of directing
the respondents to pay the amount legitimately due to the
retired employees, within a time limit. Learned counsel
for the respondents submits that the delay is on account of
the financial crunch suffered by the Corporation.
2. Heard both sides. The retired employees shall be
paid all amounts legitimately due to them within a
reasonable time even if the submission made on behalf of
the respondents that the Corporation is going through a
period of financial stringency is the true state of
affairs. The writ petition is therefore disposed of
directing the respondents to pay the petitioner the amounts
legitimately due to him towards gratuity, leave surrender
salary, pay revision arrears, D.A. arrears and other dues,
WPC No.27461/06 -2-
if any, within four months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. The petitioner may produce a copy
of the judgment before the respondents for due compliance.
3. The petitioner has prayed for interest for the
delayed payment. I do not think that this is a case where
the respondents can be directed to pay interest in exercise
of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India since the delay in disbursing the
amount is not due to any deliberate inaction or culpable
lethargy on the part of the respondents, but only on
account of financial stringency and for reasons beyond the
control of the respondents. Hence, that prayer is
declined.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
K.K. DENESAN
JUDGE
jan/-