Isac K.Varkey vs Secretary on 19 November, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 11465 of 2001(M)



1. ISAC K.VARKEY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDN
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :19/11/2009

 O R D E R
                              S. Siri Jagan, J.
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                         O.P. No. 11465 of 2001
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                Dated this, the 19th November, 2009.

                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a retired Assistant Educational Officer. He

retired from service on 31-3-1997. His retirement benefits were

withheld on the ground of certain audit objections. The audit

objections related to a report of the petitioner relating to staff

strength of an aided school under him on the basis of which staff

strength was fixed in excess of the strength allowable. Consequent

payment of salary to the junior most teacher was sought to be

recovered from his retirement benefits. Apart from that, there were

some minor items of liabilities also. The petitioner contended that the

audit objection cannot be relied upon since the petitioner only

complied with Ext. P2 circular of the Director of Public Instruction.

The petitioner earlier approached this Court and by Ext. P5, the

Government was directed to consider the petitioner’s case. Pursuant

thereto, the Government passed Ext. P7 order by which the

contentions of the petitioner were accepted and it was held that the

audit objections do not stand and the Government decided that the

petitioner can claim full retirement benefits. Pursuant thereto,

retirement benefits were disbursed to the petitioner. The petitioner

now claims interest for the delayed payment of the retirement

benefits due to the petitioner. According to the petitioner insofar as

the delay was not on account of the fault of the petitioner, the

petitioner is entitled to interest for the period of delay.

2. The learned Government Pleader opposes the prayer.

According to her, the delay occurred not because of any culpable act

on the part of the respondents, but in view of the peculiar

circumstances available in the case. She also submits that in view of

the decision of this Court in Vijayakumaran Nair v. State Bank of

Travancore, 2005(1) KLT 953, no writ petition would lie for claiming

-: 2 :-

interest alone.

3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

4. From a reading of the original petition and the documents

relating to the audit objection, I am satisfied that there was a genuine

reason for withholding the retirement benefits. There was no

culpable delay on the part of the respondents in the matter. In the

above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary

jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner to award interest.

Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed.

S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/