High Court Kerala High Court

Smt.Rosamma Chacko vs State Of Kerala on 1 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Smt.Rosamma Chacko vs State Of Kerala on 1 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 31568 of 2008(G)


1. SMT.ROSAMMA CHACKO, RETD. SANITATION
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES,

3. THE SECRETARY, CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.IYPE JOSEPH

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN, SC, MC, CHENGANNUR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :01/12/2008

 O R D E R
                      P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

                   -------------------------------

              W.P.(C) Nos.31534 & 31568 of 2008

                   -------------------------------

               Dated this the 1st December, 2008.

                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31534 of 2008 retired

from service on 31.5.2007, while she was working as Sweeper in

the Chengannur Municipality. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.31568

of 2008 retired from service on 30.9.2007 while working as

Sanitation Worker in the Chengannur Municipality. By Ext.P1

order passed on 12.9.2007, the Secretary of the Chengannur

Municipality sanctioned the terminal benefits payable to them.

The petitioners submit that though more than one year has

passed thereafter, the terminal benefits has not so far been

disbursed.

2. Sri.S.Harikrishnan, the learned counsel

appearing for the Chengannur Municipality submits that payment

of the terminal benefits sanctioned as per Ext.P1 will be made

within four months from today. Sri.Iype Joseph, the learned

W.P.(C) No.31534 & 31568 of 2008

2

counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as the

pensionary benefits have been sanctioned more than one year

back, the Municipality cannot withhold payment even for a day.

Ext.P1 discloses that way back on 12.9.2007, the terminal

benefits were sanctioned to them. No reasons, other than want

of sufficient funds, was brought to my notice for non payment of

pensionary benefits. In my opinion, the Municipality cannot plead

want of funds at its disposal to deny the petitioners the terminal

benefits sanctioned to them.

In these circumstances, I dispose of the Writ

Petitions directing the Secretary, Chengannur Municipality, to

disburse to the petitioners the terminal benefits sanctioned to

them on or before 31.1.2009. If payment as directed above is

not made within the time stipulated, the petitioners will be

entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from today till

the date of payment.

P.N.RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE

nj.