IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6108 of 2008(B)
1. K.P.RAJENDRAN NAIR, TC 14/1548(2)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT
3. DIRECTOR, STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES
4. AUDIT OFFICER, LOCAL FUND AUDIT
For Petitioner :SMT.P.V.ASHA
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :05/08/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 6108 OF 2008
--------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Heard Smt.P.V.Asha, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Sri. P.Nandakumar the learned Government Pleader appearing
for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. P.K.Vijayamohanan, the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.
2. The petitioner retired from service on 31.7.2004 on attaining the
age of superannuation while he was working as Assistant Director in the
Kerala State Institute of Languages. After retirement, by Ext.P1 order
dated 17.11.2004, payment of provisional pension was sanctioned to him.
This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the delay in payment of terminal
benefits.
3. The petitioner submits that as provisional pension alone was
sanctioned he had submitted Exts.P3 representation before the first
respondent and Ext.P3(a) representation before the second respondent
seeking payment of pensionary benefits. In reply to Ex.P3(a) letter, the
second respondent informed the petitioner that the objections pointed out
by the Audit Officer in his letter dated 13.10.2005 are being enquired into
and that payment of pensionary benefits will be made after the audit
WPC No.6108/08
2
objections are resolved and the petitioner’s liabilities are determined. The
pleadings disclose that by Exts.P5 and P6, payment of pensionary benefits
including gratuity was sanctioned to the petitioner on 20.4.2007. The only
item of liability fixed in the said proceedings is the sum of Rs.220/-, said to
be the excess salary drawn by the petitioner. Ext.P7 produced along with
the writ petition discloses that the said amount of Rs.220/- was remitted
with the Kerala State Institute of Languages on 9.7.2007.
4. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is
contended that a sum of Rs.1,39,396/- is outstanding as the petitioner’s
liability and that only after the said liability is settled, pensionary benefits
can be disbursed to him. It is stated that when the petitioner was working
as the Editor of Vijnana Kairali, a magazine published by the Kerala State
Institute of Languages, the free postage facility was not renewed as a
result of which the Kerala State Institute of Languages suffered loss to the
tune of Rs.90,622/-. It is stated that the audit party has recommended
recovery of the said amount from the petitioner who according to the third
respondent is the person responsible for the said loss. The third
respondent has further stated that by causing excess copies of the Vijnana
Kairali to be printed during the period from April 2003 to March 2004, the
petitioner had caused loss to the tune of Rs.42,227/- to the State Institute
of Languages and that as the petitioner is the person responsible for the
WPC No.6108/08
3
same, the said amount is liable to be recovered from the petitioner. The
third respondent has also stated that the sum of Rs.2,547/- consisting of
the travelling allowance advance drawn by the petitioner and pay fixation
liability is also due from him. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit
wherein it is stated that petitioner was appointed as Editor of the Vijnana
Kairali only on 22.7.2002 and that postal concession certificate issued to
the Vijnana Kairali magazine was lost during the term of his predecessor
namely Sri.N.Jayakrishnan in November 2000. It is also stated that
Sri.N.Jayakrishnan is in service even today. As regards the printing of
excess copies of Vijnana Kairali, the petitioner has stated that the decision
on the number of copies to be printed was taken by the Governing Body of
the Kerala State Institute of Languages and therefore the petitioner cannot
be held liable for the same. The petitioner has also disputed his liability to
refund the sum of Rs.2,547/- referred to in para 6 of the counter affidavit.
5. The fact that the petitioner was appointed as the Editor of Vijnana
Kairali only in the meeting held by the Governing Body on 22.7.2002 is not
in dispute. The fact that the postal concession certificate issued to the
Vijnana Kairali was lost in November 2000 when Sri. N.Jayakrishnan, who
is still in service in the State Institute of Languages was the Editor of the
said magazine is also not disputed. The petitioner has stated that after he
was appointed as Editor, on noticing that the postal concession certificate
WPC No.6108/08
4
has been lost, urgent steps were taken to revive the postal concession and
that the postal concession was restored in September 2004. The petitioner
has also stated that the then Director of Kerala State Institute of
Languages had in his letter No.D-SIL/2001 dated 12.9.2001 informed the
Government about the loss of the postal concession certificate as early as
in September 2001 and that the Government had sent Ext.P10 reply to the
then Director. From the materials placed on record it is evident that the
petitioner was appointed as Editor only in 22.7.2002 and that the postal
concession certificate was lost two years prior to his appointment as Editor.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the loss of the postal
concession certificate and the consequences flowing there from. The
stand taken by the third respondent in para 5 of the counter affidavit and by
the audit party that the petitioner is the person responsible for the same is
in my opinion untenable.
6. As regards the loss of Rs.42,227/- said to have been caused due
to printing of excess copies of Vijnana Kairali during the financial year
2003-04, the petitioner has in categorical terms averred that the decision
regarding the number of copies to be printed was taken by the Governing
Body and not by him as the Editor. The third respondent has not denied
the said averment or produced any material to show that the decision to
increase the number of copies was a decision taken by the petitioner and
WPC No.6108/08
5
the petitioner alone and not by the governing body. In the absence of any
material to establish that it was the petitioner who decided upon the
number of copies to be printed, I am persuaded to hold that the petitioner
cannot be held liable for the loss caused to the Kerala State Institute of
Languages due to the printing of excess copies of Vijnana Kairali during
the financial year 2003-2004.
7. I shall now deal with the last item of liability of Rs.2,547/-, which
the third respondent claims is due from the petitioner towards settlement of
travelling allowance advance and towards repayment of excess pay.
Though the petitioner disputes his liability to pay back the said amount,
during the course of arguments Smt.P.V.Asha, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, very fairly conceded that the petitioner is willing to forgo the said
amount from the DCRG sanctioned and payable to him.
8. In the light of the above findings, I hold that for no justifiable
reason, payment of DCRG and other terminal benefits due to the petitioner
was withheld. Necessarily therefore, as held by the Apex Court in Dua vs.
State of Haryana (2008 (3) KLT 58) the petitioner is entitled to be
compensated by awarding of interest.
I accordingly allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to
disburse terminal benefits to the petitioner within one month from today
after deducting the sum of Rs.2,547/-. The terminal benefits shall be
WPC No.6108/08
6
disbursed to the petitioner together with interest on the DCRG at the rate of
7.5% per annum from 1.9.2004 onwards. Payment as directed above shall
be made within two months from today. Payment of arrears of pension
shall also be made within two months from today. It will be open to the
Kerala State Institute of Languages/Government to recover the amount
paid by way of interest from the officers responsible for the delayed
disbursement of terminal benefits to the petitioner. If the pensionary
benefits have been revised, the petitioner shall be given the said benefit
and payment of arrears, if any as a consequence of revision of pension,
shall be disbursed to the petitioner expeditiously.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
vps