Retirement benefits must be disbursed when no proceedings are pending against the retiree, as per government regulations.

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner retired as Typist from the Excise Division Office, Thrissur on 30.11.2007. His grievance is that he is paid only the provisional pension and that the other benefits are all withheld.

2. It is stated that on 28.6.2003, following a Vigilance raid in the office along with others, the petitioner was also placed under suspension. However, subsequently by Ext.P1 order dated 1.7.2004, without prejudice to the continuance of the proceedings the petitioner was reinstated in service. It was while so he retired from service on 30.11.2007. Thereafter he requested for release of his retirement benefits and Ext.P3 order was issued by the Government of Kerala stating that they come to the conclusion that it may not be proper to initiate vigilance enquiry against the two officers who were found to have involvement in the misconduct that was found. Ext.P3 shows that the Government have decided to deviate from its earlier tentative decision to refer the case to the Vigilance Tribunal and the case will be referred to the Secretary, Tax Department for taking WPC.No.24360/09 :2 :

departmental action against the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Manager of the Office and two Preventive Officers.

3. This order therefore shows that no further action was contemplated against the petitioner. Despite this DCRG and full pension was not sanctioned to the petitioner. It is seen that the Accountant General also admitted the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner in Ext.P4. But however, on the basis that a vigilance enquiry is pending against him, it is ordered that the petitioner will be paid only provisional pension. It is with this grievance that this writ petition is filed.

4. Ext.P3 Government Order dated 17.6.2008 referred to above shows that the involvement of the petitioner has been ruled out and even in the departmental action ordered, petitioner is excluded. If that be so, it is evident that no proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and if so petitioner should have been released his full pension and also the DCRG.

5. Having regard to the above, I feel that there is no justification for any further delay in disbursing the terminal benefits due to the petitioner and therefore the respondents are directed to disburse the pension and other retirement benefits WPC.No.24360/09 :3 :

due to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.

Petitioner hall produce a copy of the judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)

JUDGE vi/