## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN FRIDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 34121 OF 2014**
## **PETITIONER:**
DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. TEK CHAND V
## **RESPONDENT:**
K.J.MATHEW RETIRED LECTURER(SELECTION GRADE),KUNNUMURAM HOUSE, C M C 27, CHERTHALA P O
BY ADV SRI.JOBY CYRIAC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
**WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..2..**
## **JUDGMENT**
## **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.**
This writ petition is preferred by the Director of Collegiate Education, challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta in complaint No.1452 of 2010-B.
2. Short facts leading to the filing of complaint No.1452 of 2010-B are as follows:
The complainant, the respondent herein, was a Lecturer (Selection Grade) in Sree Narayana College, Cherthala, an aided college affiliated to the University of Kerala and he retired from service on 31.03.2008. According to the complainant, prior to his retirement, he stopped contribution to the Provident Fund and submitted an application for closure of Provident Fund Account. The Director of Collegiate Education, vide proceedings dated 18.11.2008, authorized partial disbursement of an amount of Rs.1,37,261/- from the Provident Fund Account of the
**WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..3..**
complainant. There was a missing credit of Rs.47,043/and the details of the missing credit were furnished. That missing credit was for the month of March, 1997. The said amount along with interest due thereon amounting to Rs.1,29,943/- was also authorized to be paid to the complainant vide proceedings dated 25.03.2009. Accordingly, he filed Ext. P1 complaint before the Lok Ayukta Lok contending that he has been paid interest only till the date of his retirement and no interest up to the date of actual payment of the amounts which stood to his credit in the Provident Fund Account has been granted. He claimed interest for the amount of Rs.1,37,261/disbursed vide proceedings dated 18.11.2008, from 31.03.2008, the date on which he retired, up to 18.11.2008 and on the subsequent amount disbursed vide proceedings dated 25.03.2009, from 31.03.2008 till 25.03.2009.
3. On behalf of the Director of Collegiate Education,
**WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..4..**
it was contended that the Provident Fund closure application in respect of the complainant was received in the office of the Director of Collegiate Education on 31.12.2007 and the same had to be returned to the Principal of the College for curing defect and the rectified application was received only on 11.08.2008 and therefore, as regards the interest on Rs.1,37,261/-, the complainant would be entitled to interest only from 11.08.2008 to 18.11.2008 and in relation to the missing credit of Rs.47,043/-, the details whereof were furnished only on 12.12.2008, the complainant would be entitled to interest on the amount of Rs.1,29,943/- only from 12.12.2008 till 25.03.2009.
4. On the basis of the contentions advanced by both sides, the Lok Ayukta found that the complainant is entitled for interest for the delay in closure of Provident Fund account. The relevant portion of Ext.P1 order of the Lok Ayukta reads as follows:
**WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..5..**
“2........................The contention advanced by the Senior Government Pleader has necessarily to be accepted and upheld as without details being furnished to the Director of Collegiate Education, the Director would not be able to sanction disbursement of amounts that lie to the credit of the complainant’s P.F.A/c.
As regards the liability of the Government to pay interest till the amount that lies in the P.F.A/c. to the credit of the subscriber as being from the date when it became payable under the Rules till the date of actual payment it is not disputed before us in the light of the decision of the Honourable High Court of Kerala in Subraya v. State of Kerala reported in 1999(2) KLT 362. Consequently, therefore, the complainant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 8.75% on Rs.1,37,261/- from 11.08.2008 till 18.11.2008 and on the subsequent disbursement of the missing credit with interest namely Rs.1,29,943/- from 12.12.2008 till 25.03.2009 (date of Ext.P2). Held accordingly.”
5. Ext.P1 order of the Lok Ayukta is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the delay in sanctioning the amount in the credit of the complainant’s Provident Fund account is attributable to the complainant, as well as the College. It is contended that the complainant retired from service on 31.03.2008 and he stopped his monthly subscription to the Provident Fund
**WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..6..**
account from 01.04.2007 onwards. He submitted his closure application only on 23.11.2007 to the Principal of the College. The University Statute stipulates that a teacher who is due to retire from service can submit his Provident Fund closure application well in advance of one year prior to the date of retirement. The complainant filed closure application after 7 months consequent on stopping of monthly subscription to his Provident Fund account and only 4 months before retirement. It is stated that the Provident Fund application of the complainant forwarded the was through Principal incomplete. Schedules showing the pay fixation areas, DA arrears, promotion arrears etc. were not produced along with the application. Therefore, the closure application was returned to the Principal vide letter dated 10.04.2008. The proposal was resubmitted by the Principal rectifying the defects partially, which was received in the office of the Director of Collegiate Education on 11.08.2008.
**WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..7..**
Accordingly, the closure was allowed in part on 18.11.2008 and sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,37,261/with interest as on the date of retirement. Thereafter, on receipt of the details of remaining missing credits from the Principal of the College on 12.12.2008, the application of the complainant was closed finally on 25.03.2009 and an amount of Rs.1,29,943/- was sanctioned with interest as on the date of retirement of the complainant. It is stated that the Provident Fund amount was paid to the respondent in two instalments only for the reason of submission of incomplete, incorrect and partially rectified application.
6. Heard Sri.Tek Chand V., learned Senior
Government Pleader for the petitioner and Sri.Joby Cyriac, learned counsel for the respondent.
7. Learned Senior Government Pleader contends that the delay in disbursement of the amounts in the credit of the complainant’s Provident Fund account cannot be
**WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..8..**
attributed to the petitioner or the Government. The Provident Fund application of the complainant forwarded through the Principal was incomplete and therefore, it was returned to the Principal vide letter dated 10.04.2008 and the rectified application was received only on 11.08.2008 and the missing credit details were furnished only on 12.12.2008. It is contended by the learned Senior Government Pleader that the delay in disbursement of the amounts in the credit of the complainant’s Provident Fund account was due to furnishing of incorrect, incomplete and rectified as well as non partially application production of sufficient documents.
8. Sri.Joby Cyriac, learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, contends that there is no mandate in the University Statutes that the provident fund closure application has to be submitted one year prior to the date of retirement and the delay cannot be attributed to the complainant and the amount becomes payable on
**WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..9..**
his retirement from service.
9. We find that the delay in disbursement of the amounts standing to the credit of the complainant in the Provident Fund Account was due to the time taken for rectifying defects in the closure application and for verifying the proposal. The Principal of the college is not a party before the Lok Ayukta. The delay has been properly explained by the Director of Collegiate Education and the Lok Ayukta has rightly found that without details being furnished to the Director of Collegiate Education, the Director would not be able to sanction disbursement of amounts that lies to the credit of the Provident Fund account. We also note that, there is no finding by the Lok Ayukta that the complainant sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration on the part of the petitioner. Section 2(k) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 defines "maladministration" to mean action taken or purporting to have been taken in exercise of
**WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..10..**
administrative function in any case where such action or the administrative procedure was unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory or that there was willful negligence or undue delay in taking such action. In the absence of any finding regarding maladministration on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner or the Government cannot be mulcted with liability to pay interest. Accordingly, the order of the Lok Ayukta is set aside.
Writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
**S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE**
Sd/-
**MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE**
**spc/**
**WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..11..**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34121/2014**
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE LOK AYUKTHA DTD 3/9/2014 IN COMPLAINT NO 1452/10
