High Court Kerala High Court

K. Raghavan vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
K. Raghavan vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 26171 of 2006(N)


1. K. RAGHAVAN, S/O. KOLADY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE COMMISSIONER,

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :07/08/2007

 O R D E R
                        Antony Dominic, J.
             ========================
                   W.P(C).No.26171 of 2006
             ========================

            Dated this the 7th day of August, 2007.

                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner, who had entered service on 3.5.1975 and retired

from service on 31.5.2006, is seeking a direction to the

respondents to pay the amount due to him towards P.F.,

commuted value of pension and the admitted part of D.C.R.G.

after deducting the amount stated as the alleged liability. A

criminal case is pending against him as C.C.No.17 of 2002 before

the Enquiry Commission and Special Judge, Kozhikode and the

case is yet to be finalised. In the meantime, petitioner is being

paid provisional pension and pursuant to a direction of this Court,

he has been paid P.F. as well.

2. In so far as his entitlement for the benefit of D.C.R.G.,

full pension and commutation value of pension are concerned, it

is governed by the provisions contained in Rule 3(a) Part III of

Kerala Service Rules and the proviso to Rule 3 Appendix X Part A

of Pension (Commutation) Rules. In terms of those provisions,

WP(C) 26171/06 -: 2 :-

so long as the judicial proceedings are pending against him,

petitioner cannot claim the benefit of full pension, commutation

value of pension or D.C.R.G.

In the result, no further reliefs can be granted to the

petitioner. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is only to be dismissed

and I do so.

Antony Dominic,
Judge.

ess 7/8