High Court Kerala High Court

K.Bhuvanachandran Nair vs Kerala State Road Transport … on 2 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.Bhuvanachandran Nair vs Kerala State Road Transport … on 2 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24019 of 2010(B)


1. K.BHUVANACHANDRAN NAIR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SUDHEER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :02/08/2010

 O R D E R
                 T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
               ---------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C) No.24019 OF 2010
               ---------------------------------------
            Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2010.


                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner retired from the service of the Kerala State

Road Transport Corporation on 31.03.2010 as Depot Inspector.

The main grievance raised in the writ petition is regarding the

delay in disbursal of DCRG and commuted value of pension.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner and his wife Ambika Devi availed a loan of Rs.1 lakh

each by standing as surety for each other, mortgaging their

residential building to Edacode Service Co-operative Bank. Since

the loans fell in arrears, the Bank has proceeded against the

petitioner and his wife. Exhibits P2 and P3 are the demand

notices issued by the Bank. Exhibit P4 is the representation

submitted by the petitioner before the respondent requesting for

disbursal of the pensionary benefits. It is pointed out by the

petitioner that he is not in a position to raise the amount which is

required for avoiding the attachment and auction of his house

W.P.(C) No.24019/2010 2

and property by the Bank.

3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC. It is

pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

guidelines issued by this Court in W.A.No.289/2001 even though

directs disbursement of the retirement benefits on the basis of

seniority, the same can be varied if ordered by this Court in

appropriate cases. Herein, there is a genuine ground.

In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the

respondent to disburse the DCRG and commuted value of pension

due to the petitioner, after conducting due enquiry, within a

period of two months.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE

smp