K.Balakrishna Pillai vs The State Of Kerala on 4 October, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 2310 of 2007()


1. K.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE

4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :04/10/2007

 O R D E R
                       H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.
              ...................................................................................
                                   W.A. No. 2310 OF 2007
              ...................................................................................
                            Dated this the 4th October , 2007


                                         J U D G M E N T

H.L. Dattu, C.J.:

After the disposal of the Writ Petition, the third respondent in the Writ

Petition/Writ Appeal has passed an order dated 6th September, 2007. In that,

they have settled the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner. The

petitioner/appellant is of the view that the respondents are expected to pay

interest on the amount of retirement benefits, since it was paid belatedly.

2. In our opinion, such a request ought to have been made by the

petitioner/appellant before the respondents by filing appropriate

application/representation/petition claiming interest on the retirement benefits

paid belatedly. If, for any reason, the request, that may be made by the

petitioner, is either rejected or not considered by the respondents, then only

the cause of action would arise for the petitioner to approach this Court.

3. In that view of the matter, we do not see any reason for interference

with the orders passed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, the Writ

Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. However, liberty is reserved

to the petitioner/appellant to make such an application/representation/petition

before the respondents for payment of interest on the retirement benefits paid

belatedly.

W.A. No. 2310 OF 2007

                                         2

       4.     Needless      to      say,    if     and     when      such    an

application/representation/petition, claiming interest on the retirement benefits

paid belatedly, is filed, the respondents will consider the same in accordance

with law.

Ordered accordingly.

H.L. DATTU,
CHIEF JUSTICE.

K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.

lk