High Court Kerala High Court

M.Masood Kunju vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
M.Masood Kunju vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 9760 of 2009(L)


1. M.MASOOD KUNJU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

4. THE TAHSILDAR,

5. JOINT SECRETARY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :26/03/2009

 O R D E R
               T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
                      -------------------------
                  W.P ( C) No.9760 of 2009
                      --------------------------
              Dated this the 26th March,2009

                        J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, while working as Deputy Tahasildar,

retired from service on 31.10.2003. But still the DCRG

has not been disbursed to him.

2. Before retirement, he was suspended from

service on the allegation of issuance of a solvency

certificate. He was issued with memo of charges and later

was reinstated in service. Exhibit-P1 is the copy of the

charge memo to which the petitioner has submitted

Exhibit-P2

3. Some other officers including Village Officers

and Tahsildars were also suspended from service and they

have also been subjected to disciplinary action.

Ultimately the disciplinary action against the similarly

placed persons were dropped and it is pointed out that the

concerned Tahasildar has already received the entire

DCRG,. This is evidenced by Exhibit-P3 dated

W.P ( C) No.9760 of 2009
2

15.11.2005 . The only role of the petitioner was to forward

the report of the Village Officers for issuance of solvency

certificates to the Tahasildar. It is submitted that no loss

has been caused to the Government in the matter.

3. Repeated representations have been submitted

by the petitioner seeking to disburse the DCRG and other

benefits . Earlier he had approached this Court by filing

WPC No. 12149 of 2007 and pursuant to the directions

issued in Exhibit-P5 judgment dated 18.12.2007, the 5th

respondent issued an order directing to release the

pensionary benefits to the petitioner including the DCRG.

But only the DCRG at a lower rate was paid to the

petitioner and other pensionary benefits were not paid to

him. In these circumstances, he has filed a detailed

representation as per Exhibit-P6 before the 1st respondent

requesting to sanction and regularize the suspension

period as duty and disburse to him the amount on account

of terminal benefits, leave surrender, arrears of increment,

pay, pension, DCRG and Commuted Value of Pension etc.

4. Petitioner seeks for a direction to the

W.P ( C) No.9760 of 2009
3

Government to take a decision on Exhibit-P6 within a time

frame.

5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the 1st respondent to take a decision on Exhibit

P6. after hearing the petitioner, within a period of four

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE)
ma

W.P ( C) No.9760 of 2009
4

W.P ( C) No.9760 of 2009
5