IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19753 of 2009(L)
1. P.J.MATHAI, PUNAKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SREE SANKARACHRYA UNIVERSITY OF
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR, SREE SANKARACHARYA
3. M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM REP.BY
4. THE REGISTRAR, M.G.UNIVERSITY
5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF
For Petitioner :SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR)
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,SC,SANKARACHA.UTY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :04/02/2010
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 19753 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 4th day of February, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner retired as Assistant Registrar from the 1st
respondent-University. Prior to joining the 1st respondent-
University, the petitioner was an employee of the 3rd respondent-
University. The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that
although he retired from the service of the 1st respondent on 31-5-
2008, retirement benefits due to him have not been disbursed to him
so far and the 3rd respondent did not remit the pro-rata pension
contribution to the 1st respondent in spite of repeated requests. It is
under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ
petition seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to the 3rd & 4th respondents to transfer the
prorate pension contribution to the 1st respondent so as enable the
disbursement of the DCRG and service pension to the petitioner
with direction to the 1st respondent to disburse the same
immediately together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of
retirement, on such transfer by the 3rd respondent.
(b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to re-consider Ext.
P1 to P3 requests by the 2nd respondent and do the necessary in
accordance with law.”
2. The 3rd respondent-University has filed a statement
contending that they are not liable to pay pension contribution in
respect of the service of the petitioner with them in view of Annexure
A Government Order, which has been adopted by the University by
Annexure B. It is also pointed out that the 1st respondent-University
has also adopted Annexure A Government Order by Order
W.P.C. No. 19753/2009. -: 2 :-
No.Ad.B.9828/SSUS/05 dated 20-1-2010.
3. Counsel for the petitioner would now submit that in view of
the said order of the 1st respondent-University, the 1st respondent
cannot now insist on payment of pro-rata pension contribution by the
3rd respondent-University for disbursing retirement benefits due to
the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the
above circumstances, the 3rd respondent-University may be directed
to forward the service book of the petitioner for the period of service
with the 3rd respondent to the 1st respondent to enable the 1st
respondent to finalise and disburse the retirement benefits due to the
petitioner and to direct the 1st respondent to disburse to the
petitioner, the retirement benefits due to him, expeditiously.
4. I have heard all parties in detail.
5. In view of the fact that the 1st respondent-University has also
adopted Annexure A Government Order produced by the 1st
respondent-University, they cannot now insist on the 3rd respondent
paying pro-rata contribution by the 3rd respondent-University for the
purpose of reckoning the period of service with the 3rd respondent
University for computing the retirement benefits due to the
petitioner from the 1st respondent-University. In the above
circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions:
The 3rd respondent-University shall, within two weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, forward the service book of
the petitioner for the period of service with them to the 1st
respondent-University. On receipt of the same, the 1st respondent-
University shall finalise the payment of retirement benefits due to the
W.P.C. No. 19753/2009. -: 3 :-
petitioner taking into account the petitioner’s service with 3rd
respondent -University also, and disburse the same to the petitioner
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the
date of receipt of the service book of the petitioner from the 3rd
respondent-University. However, I make it clear that the above
would be subject to recovery of liabilities due from the petitioner, if
any. The petitioner prays for a direction to the 1st respondent to pay to
him interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to direct
payment of interest.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/