IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 28447 of 2005(J)
1. K.SALIM, S/O.KASSIM, ASSISTANT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. THE CHIEF INTERNAL AUDITOR,
4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :02/08/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 28447 OF 2005
====================
Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner has retired as an Assistant Engineer from the
service of the Kerala State Electricity Board on 30.10.2003. As his
pensionary benefits were withheld, he approached this Court by
filing WP(C) No.1375 of 2004, which was disposed of by Ext.P8
judgment directing consideration of the representation made by
him. Consequently, Ext.P9 order was issued by the Secretary of
the Board directing release of the pensionary benefits of the
petitioner, but however withholding his DCRG. It is stated that
the Board had ordered to conduct an enquiry to find out the
person responsible for an accident and therefore petitioner’s
request for release of DCRG could be considered at that stage. It
is seeking to quash Ext.P9 and for the release of the DCRG that
this writ petition is filed.
2. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that
the accident made mention of in Ext.P9 is one which occurred on
4/5/92, which resulted in an injury to a person. It is stated that
WPC 28447/2005
: 2 :
the injured had filed a Civil Suit for damages which resulted in
Ext.P3 judgment in OS No.215/1994 on the file of Sub Judge,
Cherthala. In that suit, court had entered a finding in Para 16
thereof that the defendants 3 and 4 therein are not personally
liable for the compensation due to the plaintiff therein and that
the Board was liable for the same. Reference to Ext.P3 also
disclose that the petitioner was the third defendant in the suit. It
is further pointed out that Board had filed an appeal against
Ext.P3 judgment before the District Court, Alleppey and that the
Appellate Court reduced the compensation to Rs.85,000/- and
that accepting the judgment of the District Court, compensation
has been paid. Since the Civil Court had held that the officers of
the Board were responsible for the accident, the Board had
ordered to conduct an enquiry to locate the person responsible for
the same and that is the enquiry mentioned in Ext.P9 .
3. Counsel for the petitioner made available a copy of the
note issued by the Secretary of the Board to the Chief Engineer
(HRM) dated 26/4/2007, which discloses that in a Vigilance
Enquiry that was conducted, one Mr.V.S.Chandran, Sub Engineer
was found to be responsible for the accident and that, action is
WPC 28447/2005
: 3 :
ordered to be initiated against the aforesaid Sri.V.S.Chandran for
recovery of the amount paid as damages pursuant to the
judgment and decree in the Civil Suit.
4. From the facts as stated herein above, it is evident that
neither in the civil suit nor in the vigilance enquiry that was
conducted on the orders of the Board, has the petitioner been
found responsible for the accident that occurred on 4/5/92. In
such factual background, I do not see any reason why DCRG that
is due to the petitioner should be withheld any further. Hence, I
hold that the petitioner is entitled to be released the DCRG that is
due to him and the respondents shall ensure that the admissible
amount of DCRG is released to the petitioner within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp