K. L. Reethamma v. Director of General Education & Others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU** **TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **OP(KAT).No.71 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 2373/2016 DATED 07-11-2019 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A:** |**1**|**DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION**| |---|---| ||**OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,**| ||**JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.**| ||**(DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,**| ||**JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014 IN O.A)**| |**2**|**THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA-688 001**| |**3**|**THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE**| ||**PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,**| ||**SECRETARIAT ANNEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-688 001**| ||**BY SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, GOVT.PLEADER**| ## **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN O.A:** **K.L.REETHAMMA, AGED 63 YEARS, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED), RESIDING AT 'CHULLICKAL'HOUSE,POLLATHAL.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-688522.** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P(KAT) No.71 of 2021 2 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS & K.BABU, JJ.** ------------------------------------ O.P(KAT) No.71 of 2021 _[Arising out of the order dated 07-112019 in O.A No.2373 of 2016 of KAT, Tvm Bench_ ] ------------------------------------ Dated this the 16[th] day of March, 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **K.BABU, J** This Original Petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order in O.A No.2373/2016 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal Thiruvananthapuram (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The petitioners/the respondents in the O.A have sought for the following reliefs: - _“(a) To set aside the Ext.P5 order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A No.2373/2016._ - _(b) To dismiss the Ext.P1 Original Application No.2373/2016 filed by the respondent before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, holding that the respondent is not eligible for the relief of interest on the delay occurred in by DCRG as claimed in the Ext.P1 original application._ - _(c) Any other order or direction as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”_ 2. We have heard Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners/respondents in the O.A. 3. The sole respondent/Original Applicant had filed the O.A with the following prayer: O.P(KAT) No.71 of 2021 3 - _“(i) To direct the respondent 1 & 2 to pay interest @ 12% of the DCRG amount of Rs.6,44,630/- to the applicant for the aforesaid delay of one year and five and half months.”_ 4. By order dated 07-11-2019, the Tribunal directed the petitioner No.2/respondent No.2 in the O.A to pay interest to the DCRG amount due to the Original Applicant @ 7% from 01-04-2015 to the date of payment. 5. The Original applicant, who retired as Senior Superintendent from the office of the Assistant Educational Officer at Thuravoor, was entitled to DCRG of Rs.6,44,630/-. The respondent/the original applicant retired on 31-12-2014. The payment of DCRG of Rs.6,44,630/- had been authorised by the Accountant General on 11-12-2014. By Anx.A1 notice petitioner No.1 /respondent No.1 in the O.A had directed the original applicant to furnish the details of the institutions where she had worked three years immediately prior to the retirement. By way of Anx.A2 petitioner No.2/respondent No.2 had directed the DEO, Alappuzha to settle certain audit objections raised for the period from 01-012003 to 31-12-2004. No effective action was taken by the petitioner No.2 to issue NLC/LC and no notice had been given to the respondent/original applicant regarding any liability. The original O.P(KAT) No.71 of 2021 4 applicant had submitted Anx.A3 letter dated 14-10-2014, stating that the relevant audit file had started in September 2005, whereas she had taken charge of the section only on 10-05-2010. She had taken prompt action for settlement of the audit objections. But no decision had been taken on the reply given by the original applicant. Then she had executed a bond for release of the DCRG for the alleged liability of Rs.13,260/-. Subsequently, petitioner No.2 issued Anx.A4 letter intimating the issuance of NLC. Later, as per Anx.A5 letter dated 318-2015, the petitioner No.1 had authorised release of DCRG to the original applicant after withholding her liability of Rs.1,658/-. The Original applicant was later directed by the Accountant General to return the gratuity payment order for revision. A revised gratuity payment order was issued on 14-01-2016. The DCRG was eventually released only on 15-06-2016, nearly one and half years after the retirement of the original applicant. Annexure A8 order makes it clear that the original applicant was entirely absolved of the liability leading to the conclusion that there was no valid ground for withholding the DCRG. Therefore she prayed for interest @12% on the amount of DCRG for the period of delay. 6. The claim of the applicant is resisted by the respondents. It O.P(KAT) No.71 of 2021 5 is stated that the pension papers of the original applicant had been forwarded to the Accountant General on 01-11-2014 and the claims were authorised by the Accountant General on 11-12-2014. A provisional liability of Rs.13,260/- had been fixed on certain officers including the original applicant. The original applicant had handled the relevant files while working as Junior Superintendent in the office of petitioner No.2 and the liability was finalised after obtaining the explanations from the officials concerned. In the meantime, sanction had been accorded to release the DCRG less the amount of personal liability of the original applicant. There was no lapse or delay on the part of the respondents in releasing the DCRG. 7. It is evident from Anx.A8 that there was no valid grounds to fasten the liability on the original applicant as the audit objections relate to a period 5 years before she had taken charge of the relevant section. The original applicant was absolved from any liability as the petitioners themselves came to the conclusion that the original applicant was not liable for any amount. 8. In view of the materials on record, the Tribunal directed the petitioner No.2 to pay interest @ 7% from 01-04-2015 to the date of payment. The Original applicant retired on 31-12-2014 and payment O.P(KAT) No.71 of 2021 6 of DCRG had been authorised by the Accountant General on 11-122014. By fastening the liability on the original applicant on the basis of an audit objection which related to a period 5 years before she had taken charge of the relevant section, the DCRG due to her was released only on 15-06-2016, nearly one and half years after the retirement of the original applicant. 9. While dealing with the question of delay in the disbursement of pension and gratuity to the Government employees, the Apex ## Court in _**State of Kerala & Others v. M.Padmanabhan Nair**_ , [1985 (1) SCC 429] held thus: _“Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment.”_ ## 10. The legal position enunciated in _**M.Padmanabhan**_ _**Nair’s case**_ (supra) was reiterated by the Supreme Court many time in subsequent decisions including decision in _**D.D.Tewari (D)**_ ## _**through Lrs v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.,**_ [2014 8 SCC 894]. In _**Tewari’s case**_ (supra) the Apex Court awarded interest @ 9% on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity amount from the date of entitlement till the date of the 7 O.P(KAT) No.71 of 2021 actual payment. 11. The Tribunal directed the petitioner No.2 to pay interest @ 7% from 01-04-2015. We are of the firm view that the order of the Tribunal requires no interference at the hands of this Court. We direct the petitioner No.2 to disburse the amount due to the respondent /Original applicant within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The order of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. With these observations and directions the above Original Petition will stand dismissed. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** Sd/- **K.BABU, JUDGE** KAS O.P(KAT) No.71 of 2021 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.2373/16 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL** - **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.P-3/72919/14/DPI DATED 30.01.2015.** - **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F3/23023/05 DATED 17.09.2014.** - **ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 14.10.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.** - **ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.G6/16827/2014 DATED 18.04.2015 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT** - **ANNEXURE A4(A) TRUE COPY OF BOND DATED 28.03.2015 ISSUED BY APPLICANT.** - **ANNEXURE A4(B) TRUE COPY OF NON LIABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 18.04.2015** - **ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.P3/72919/2014/DPI DATED 31.08.2015** - **ANNEXURE A6 TRU COPY OF LETTER NO.P3/72919/14/DPI DATED 23.09.2015 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT** - **ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.05.2016 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF ACCOUNTANT GENERAL** - **ANNEXURE A7(A) TRUE COPY OF GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER DATED 14.01.2016 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF ACCOUNTANT GENERAL** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13.11.2016** - **EXHIBIT P3** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 04.01.2019** O.P(KAT) No.71 of 2021 9 **EXHIBIT P4** **TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT ALONG WITH ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE A(8)** **TRUE COPY OF NOTICE F3/23023/2005 DATED 29.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO DEO,ALAPPUZHA.** **ANNEXURE A8(A) TRUE COPY OF ERRATUM DATED 26.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO DEO,ALAPPUZHA** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 07.11.2019.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL**