IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 29 of 2008()
1. C.S.UDAYAVALLY, PADMA MANDIRAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.S.KAMALA DEVI AMMA,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :05/04/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J
-------------------------------------
C.R.P No.29 OF 2008
--------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of April 2010
ORDER
Revision is directed against the judgment rendered by
the learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara in A.S No.158 of 2001
whereunder the decree passed by the learned Munsiff in favour of
the 1st respondent/plaintiff in a suit for money was reversed and
set aside.
2. Short facts giving rise to the revision may be
summed up thus: The respondent hereinafter referred to as the
plaintiff was the retired Head Mistress of a Govt. High School.
She retired from service on superannuation on 31.03.1997. Her
claim for gratuity had been delayed on account of the objection
raised by her successor in office, the 4th defendant in the suit, in
sending a false report imputing her liability in the missing of
books from the library of the school, was the basis of the suit
claim for delayed payment. Plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.12,240/-
as interest on the gratuity amount, the payment of which was
delayed by two years on the objection raised by the 4th defendant.
Suit claim was sought against the State and public officials
including the 4th defendant. Third and fourth defendants filed
separate written statements resisting the suit claim. The trial
court after examining the materials produced found merit in the
C.R.P No.29 OF 2008 Page numbers
case canvassed by the plaintiff and decreed the suit in favour of
the plaintiff but fixing the liability only as against the 4th
defendant alone. Fourth defendant filed an appeal challenging
the decree and judgment of the trial court. The appellate court
after reappreciating the materials produced in the case reversed
the judgment of the trial court and nonsuited the plaintiff by
allowing the appeal. Propriety and correctness of the judgment
so rendered by the appellate court is assailed in this revision.
2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The appellate
court went wrong in interfering with the finding arrived by the trial
court that the 4th defendant was liable to pay interest on the
delayed payment as canvassed in the suit is the submission of the
learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff.
Reliance is placed on “Chacko v State of Kerala and others”
(2000(1) KLJ 751) to contend that when an amount legally due
was withheld the party responsible for withholding such payment
is liable to pay interest on the amount due as compensation to
the claimant. It was on account of a false report sent by the 4th
defendant fixing liability on the plaintiff for the missing of the
books in the library of the school there was delay in payment of
her gratuity and, so much so, the wrong doer 4th defendant, is
liable to pay interest on the amount which was belatedly paid, is
C.R.P No.29 OF 2008 Page numbers
the submission of the counsel. Per contra, the learned counsel for
the respondent/4th defendant in the suit contended that as the
successor in office it was her duty to report the missing of the
books to the higher authorities and it was on the orders passed by
the 2nd defendant, Deputy Director of Education, liability was fixed
directing reduction of the gratuity amount to the extent of the
amount due to the Govt. from the plaintiff. The fact that the
Govt. has later absolved the plaintiff from the liability in no way
enable her to fix any liability on the 4th defendant, the successor
to the office held by the plaintiff, for the delay in the payment of
gratuity as she had only discharged her duty as an officer holding
a public office, according to the counsel. The reversal of the
decree granted by the appellate court does not warrant any
interference in the given facts of the case is the submission of the
learned Government Pleader.
3. I have perused the judgment passed by the learned
Sub Judge and also by the learned Munsiff. It is an admitted fact
that the 4th defendant took over charge as the Head Mistress of
the school after the retirement of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has no
case that charge was handed over to the 4th defendant on her
retirement from service. It is also not disputed that a good
number of books, nearly 1409, were missing from the school
C.R.P No.29 OF 2008 Page numbers
library at a time when the 4th defendant took over charge as the
Headmistress of the institution. The audit wing after verification
had also reported the missing of the books in the library. When
that be the position, it goes without saying that it was the duty of
the 4th defendant to report the missing of the books before the
higher officials of the department of education. That alone
appears to have been done by the 4th defendant, successor in
office of the plaintiff, in reporting the missing of the books. It was
the 2nd defendant, Deputy Director of Education, who had fixed
the liability of the missing of the books on the plaintiff issuing
directions to the 4th defendant that nonliability certificate should
not be issued for releasing her gratuity before clearing of the
liability. It also appears from the judgment rendered by the
learned Sub Judge that the communication sent by the 2nd
defendant, Deputy Director of Education to the 4th defendant
warned her that in the event of any default on her part in issuing
nonliability certificate overlooking the direction, then the liability
will be fixed on her for reimbursement of the amount due to the
Govt. towards the missing of the books. It is also seen from the
judgment that copy of the communication was sent to the plaintiff
as well. Whatever be the merit of the case of the plaintiff to claim
interest on the delayed payment in the given facts, such delay in
C.R.P No.29 OF 2008 Page numbers
the release of gratuity cannot be imputed against the 4th
defendant as she had discharged only the duty cast on her, as
expressed by the learned Sub Judge. The gratuity amount was
delayed by two years in view of the liability fixed on her by the 2nd
defendant is the basis for the suit claim. The liability fixed was
only to the tune of Rs.5,000/-, and nothing prevented the plaintiff
from getting the gratuity amount except to the extent of the
liability fixed. If at all she was entitled to any interest on delayed
payment, such claim could have been pressed into service only in
respect of the sum fixed as liability. She was later absolved from
the liability by the Govt. since there was no concrete evidence to
show that she alone was culpable for the missing of the books
does not lead to a conclusion nor even an interference supporting
her claim for interest on the delayed payment. As stated earlier,
the 4th defendant had only discharged her duties as the successor
to the office held by the plaintiff in sending a report to the higher
officials as to the missing of books. She cannot be found fault
with for sending a report which no doubt was her duty. Failure or
omission to do so would have resulted in fixing of liability on her
for the missing of the books. I do not find any impropriety in the
judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge reversing the decree
granted in favour of the plaintiff and nonsuiting her in the given
C.R.P No.29 OF 2008 Page numbers
facts of the case. No interference with that judgment is called for.
The decision relied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff has no
application to the facts of the case, which related to a claim
allowed in a proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Revision is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv