Francis Joseph Maliekal v. Kerala Water Authority and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.12249 OF 2020(E)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **FRANCIS JOSEPH MALIEKAL AGED 56 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH M. K., HEAD OPERATOR (HG) (RETIRED), HOLDER OF PPO NO.9781, MALIEKAL HOUSE, SUBASH NAGAR, MAMMUTHY P. O., THRISSUR - 680 651.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY SRI.G.AJITH KUMAR SRI.S.SUNIL KUMAR (PALAKKAD)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**KERALA WATER AUTHORITY**| |---|---| ||**OFFICE OF MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033, REPRESENTED BY**| ||**ITS SECRETARY.**| |**2**|**ACCOUNTS OFFICER**| ||**KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, FINANCE WING,**| ||**JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.**| |**3**|**THE SUPERINTENDENTING ENGINEER**| ||**KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PUBLIC HEALTH CIRCLE,**| ||**THRISSUR - 680001.**| |**4**|**THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER**| ||**KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PUBLIC HEALTH**| ||**DIVISION, THRISSUR - 680001.**| ||**R1-4 BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJEMIN**| ## **WP(C).No.12249 OF 2020** **==> picture [18 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SMT MARY BENJAMINE -SC .** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.12249 OF 2020** ..3.. ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 6th day of July, 2020** The petitioner, inter-alia, seeks a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to disburse the amounts covered under Exhibits P-2 and P-3, in respect of the petitioner's retiremental benefits at the earliest. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a retired employee of the 1[st] respondent authority. On the basis of Exhibits P-2 and P-3, the 1[st] respondent issued a letter to the petitioner for collecting an amount of Rs.30,85,103/- as retiremental benefits from the Authority. There was also a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to take necessary steps for the early disbursal of the amount. 3. According to the petitioner, he intends to get his eldest daughter married. However, due to financial stringency, he is unable to go ahead with the proposal. ## **WP(C).No.12249 OF 2020** **==> picture [18 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Likewise, his 2[nd] daughter is pursuing her nursing and his youngest daughter is pursuing radiation technology. The petitioner has availed loans from his well-wishers and friends. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in non-disbursal of the amounts covered by Exhibits P-2 and P-3. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is in grave financial difficulty due to proposed marriage of his eldest daughter and the education of his younger two daughters. The petitioner has retired from service as early as on 31.07.2019. There is no justification on the part of the respondents in not disbursing his retiremental benefits. He relied on the decision of this Court in **KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. K.Kesavan** [2014(3) KHC 167] to contend that the ## **WP(C).No.12249 OF 2020** **==> picture [17 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** retiremental benefits is a property and the respondents cannot withhold the same. 6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that, this Court in W.P.(C) No.5367 of 2019 and connected cases, has directed the respondents to disburse the retiremental benefits to its employees only as per the priority list maintained by them. The respondents have paid DCRG to all its employees who have signed the DCRG authorisation as on 31.12.2018. Similarly, commuted value of pension has been disbursed to employees who retired from service as on 31.03.2017. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he has signed the DCRG authorisation only in September, 2019 and submitted the commuted value of pension papers only on 31.07.2019. Hence, the petitioner has to wait, as per the priority list maintained by the respondents, to get his retiremental benefits. ## **WP(C).No.12249 OF 2020** **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **State of Rajastan and others v. Mahendra Nath Sharma** [2015 KHC 4442] and in a host of other precedents has held that payment of pension is not a bounty but a benefit conferred on an employee for his unblemished career. Pension is a right and payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government. It is also trite that an employer cannot seek shelter that it is perilously perched in financial distress, to deny an employee his retiremental benefits 8. According to me, the ratio in the abovecited decision squarely applies to payment of retiremental benefits also. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is proposing to get his eldest daughter married, treating this as a special case, in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents ## **WP(C).No.12249 OF 2020** **==> picture [17 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** are to be directed to disburse the DCRG amount covered by Exhibit P-3, within a period of two months from today, which shall not be treated a precedent. I do order so. I make it clear that if the amount so directed is not paid within the stipulated time period, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest on the DCRG amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of Exhibit P-3 till the date of payment as laid down in **State of Rajastan and others v. Mahendra Nath Sharma** [cited supra]. 10. As far as the disbursal of commuted value of pension is concerned, I am of the view that the petitioner has to wait as per the priority list, maintained by the respondents as per the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No.5367 of 2019 and connected cases. 11. With respect to the petitioner's claim for interest on the payment of Provident Fund covered by Exhibit P-1, the same is a disputed question of fact. Therefore, I leave open the right of the petitioner, to ## **WP(C).No.12249 OF 2020** **==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** claim interest on the delayed payment of the amount covered by Exhibit P-1, in an appropriate proceeding before the competent court/forum. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:- - (i)The respondents shall disburse the DCRG amount covered by Exhibit P-3, within a period of two months from today, failing which, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest on the DCRG amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of Exhibit P-3 till the date of payment. - (ii)The respondents shall disburse the petitioner's commuted value of pension as per priority list, maintained by the respondents. - (iii)The petitioner's claim for interest on the delayed payment of the amount covered by Exhibit P-1 is left open to be agitated before the competent **WP(C).No.12249 OF 2020** **==> picture [18 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** court/forum, in appropriate proceedings. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** kkj ## **WP(C).No.12249 OF 2020** ..10.. ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVIDENT FUND SANCTIONED ORDER NO.KWA/HO/AO/F11/C118 DATED 29.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KWA/AO(ESTT.)/PEN.9824/COM. (NON MEDICAL)/8867/616 DATED 29.08.2019 OF RESPONDENT NO.1.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KWA/AO(ESTT.)/PEN.9824/COM. (NON MEDICAL)/8867/9698 DATED 02.05.2019 OF RESPONDENT NO.1.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 05.02.2020 ISSUED BY JUBILEE MISSION COLLEGE OF NURSING.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 13.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE AMALA CANCER HOSPITAL SOCIETY. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.06.2020 SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENT NO.1.**