Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Water Authority, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, having worked as Operator Higher Grade, retired from the service of the respondent Water Authority on 31.10.2013.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite his repeated efforts to secure his retirement benefits amounting to ` 8,25,308/-, so far the respondent authorities have not responded positively. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
WPC 32986/14 2
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Water Authority, having not disputed the claim of the petitioner, has pleaded that given the financial constraints of the respondent Water Authority, it needs more time to pay the pensionary benefits of the petitioner, including DCRG and commuted value of pension.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authority to pay the admitted pensionary benefits of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv