High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-12-14Petition allowed in part; directions issued to ...

K. Sreedharan and M. Vasu v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 25391 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anu Sivaraman
Judgment Date: 2022-12-14
Court Decision / Holding: There will, accordingly, be a direction to the respondents to take up the representations submitted by the petitioners and to consider and pass orders on the same, taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court, referred to above as well. Appropriate orders shall be passed by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amounts found due shall be released to the petitioners within a period of two months thereafter.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed in part; directions issued to consider representations and pass appropriate orders within two months; sale of due amounts to be released within two months thereafter; no further relief specified.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K. Sreedharan
M. Vasu

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resource Department
The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority
The Finance Manager, Kerala Water Authority
The Chief Engineer, Kerala Water Authority
Executive Engineer, PH Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority, Malapuram
Assistant Executive Engineer, PH Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority, Up Hill

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.R. Rajkumar
• Jagadeesh
• Lal Lakshman?
• Rahul Raj

Counsels for Respondents

• Georgie Johny
• Sri N. Rajeev, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the fixation of retirement benefits and the deduction of liabilities from pension and DCRG in respect of two former Kerala Water Authority (KWA) employees who were initially engaged as CLR workers and later regularized. The petitioners allege that they were engaged in 1981 as CLR workers and, after long service, regularized in 1989. They continued in service, receiving time-bound higher-grade promotions and pay revision, with fixation based on their earlier CLR service. After retirement (2013 and 2016), liability certificates were issued (Exhibits P4–P5) showing sums due, arising from the erroneous inclusion of CLR service for grade promotions and pension calculations. The petitioners filed representations (Exhibits P7–P8) challenging the fixation and seeking reckoning of CLR service for pension, as well as reimbursement of deductions. The respondents contended that the earlier CLR service was erroneously counted for promotions and pension, that the liability fixation occurred after promotions and pension processing, and that deductions were proper. The court noted that the petitioners had benefited from reckonings without compulsion and highlighted that post-retirement liability intimations would be illegal per the Supreme Court guidance in State Of Punjab & Ors v. Rafiq Masih. It directed consideration of the representations and release of any due amounts within specified timeframes, while taking note of the cited principles.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that they were initially engaged as CLR workers in 1981 and regularized as regular employees in 1989, and continued to receive benefits of time-bound higher-grade promotions and pay revisions, accounting for their earlier CLR service. After retirement (2013 and 2016), liability certificates (Exhibits P4–P5) indicated sums due arising from the erroneous inclusion of CLR service for pension and grade promotions. They submitted representations (Exhibits P7–P8) challenging the fixation and seeking reckoning of CLR service for pension, plus reimbursement of deductions from DCRG and salary. They urged that notices of liability post-retirement are illegal and untenable, and that the authorities must consider their representations and release the due amounts consistent with Supreme Court guidance (Rafiq Masih). They seek quashing of incorrect fixations and immediate relief to avoid unwarranted financial burden in retirement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the earlier CLR service was erroneously counted for promotions and pension; such inclusion was a mistake which came to light during pension processing. They contended that when the pension papers were submitted, the error was discovered, and liability was calculated accordingly. They submitted that the deduction and liability are permissible given corrected fixation and that post-retirement recovery cannot be entertained lightly. The respondents emphasized that the petitioners had benefited from reckonings; however, the liability notices issued after retirement raise concerns about legality and fairness. They urged dismissal or substantial reduction of relief sought, while assuring that proper consideration of the representations would be pursued within lawful limits.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer)	2015 (1) KLT 429 (SC)	Positive	The court relies on the principles laid down in this apex court decision to hold that post-retirement liability fixation and deductions would be illegal; it supports the petitioners' challenge to retroactive recovery.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K. Sreedharan and M. Vasu v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 25391 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 K. SREEDHARAN AGED 64 YEARS S/O VELAYUDHAN NAIR, KEERANKAVIL HOUSE, VILAYIL P.O, VIA KUZHIMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (WORKED AS HEAD OPERATOR, PH SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT) , PIN - 673641 2 M. VASU AGED 62 YEARS S/O AYYAPAN M, PULKANDI HOUSE, AREEKODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (WORKED AS HEAD OPERATOR, PH SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT) , PIN - 673639 BY ADVS. K.R.RAJKUMAR JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN RAHUL RAJ ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695001 2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695033 3 THE FINANCE MANAGER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695033 4 THE CHIEF ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, NORTHERN REGION, BSNL STAFF QUARTERS ROAD, MALAPARAMBU, KOZHIKODE, KERALA , PIN - 673017 W.P.(C)No.25391 OF 2022 **==> picture [7 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 5 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P H SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAPURAM , PIN - 676505 6 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P H SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM , PIN - 676505 BY ADV GEORGIE JOHNY BY SRI.N.RAJEEV, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.25391 OF 2022 3 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 14[th] day of December, 2022** ## This writ petition is filed seeking the following ## reliefs: _“(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order to call for the records leading to Exhibit P3 pertaining to the 1st petitioner and Exhibit P5 pertaining to the 2[nd] petitioner and quash the same._ _(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to reckon petitioner's CLR service period to be included in their regular service and thereby have the right to get the full pension. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to reimburse the entire amount with interest which has been withheld from petitioners DCRG and also to reimburse the amount which has been deducted from the salary while petitioner was in service as per the orders of the 3rd respondent._ _(iv) to declare that the respondents have no authority to recover any pay and allowances given to petitioners after their retirement.”_ W.P.(C)No.25391 OF 2022 4 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Water Authority. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were engaged as CLR workers under the respondent Authority in the year 1981. Thereafter, they were appointed as regular workers in the year 1989. It is submitted that they had continued in service and were granted all the benefits of time bound higher grade, pay fixation as well as revision of pay, taking note of the earlier CLR service rendered by them. It is submitted that the petitioners retired from service on 30.11.2013 and 31.05.2016 respectively. After his retirement, a liability certificate showing an amount of Rs.6,54,515/- was issued to the 1[st] W.P.(C)No.25391 OF 2022 5 petitioner as Exhibit P4 dated 26.08.2014. As far as the 2[nd] petitioner is concerned, Exhibit P5 dated 06.01.2015 liability certificate was issued. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have preferred Exhibits P7 and P8 representations before the respondents as against the illegal fixation of the liability against them after their retirement. However, no steps have been taken thereon. 4. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by respondents 2 to 5. It is submitted that the 1[st] petitioner retired from service on 30.11.2013 and the 2[nd] petitioner on 31.05.2016. It is submitted that the petitioners were initially appointed as CLR workers and thereafter as regular workers under the Water Authority. It is submitted that while granting the 1[st] , 2[nd ] and 3[rd] Time Bound Higher Grade Promotions on W.P.(C)No.25391 OF 2022 6 completion of 10 years, 18 years and 23 years service, the earlier CLR service rendered by them was erroneously taken note of. It is stated that the inclusion of the earlier period of CLR service as service liable to be reckoned for grade promotions and pensionary benefits was erroneous and that when the pension papers were submitted, the error came to the notice of the respondents. It is submitted that it was on that account that the benefits which was wrongly drawn by the petitioners were calculated and intimated as their liability. 5. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I notice that the petitioners had been granted the benefit of reckoning of their earlier CLR service as regular service for all purposes by the respondents without any compulsion. The petitioners had W.P.(C)No.25391 OF 2022 7 drawn the benefits granted to them apparently on fixation of their pay from 25.08.1992 and 29.04.1992 respectively. No notice has also been served on the petitioners with regard to the wrong fixation of their pay. It is clear that it was only by Exhibits P4 and P5 proceedings issued long after the benefits had been granted that the liability was intimated and informed to them. 6. I am of the opinion that the intimation of the liabilities after the retirement of the petitioners who are low paid employees of the Water Authority or immediately before such retirement would be illegal and unsustainable in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in **State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer)** [2015 (1) KLT 429 (SC)]. I am of the opinion that the representations submitted by the petitioners are therefore, liable W.P.(C)No.25391 OF 2022 8 to be considered and an appropriate decision is to be taken with regard to the release of the amounts illegally deducted from the petitioners' pensionary benefits. There will, accordingly, be a direction to the respondents to take up the representations submitted by the petitioners and to consider and pass orders on the same, taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court, referred to above as well. Appropriate orders shall be passed by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amounts found due shall be released to the petitioners within a period of two months thereafter. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** SSK/14/12 W.P.(C)No.25391 OF 2022 9 ## **APPENDIX** ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E1-2699/91 DATED 18-06-1991ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PH DIVISION, KWA, MALAPPURAM Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO. E1-374/2006. VOL. I DATED 11-10-2007 PERTAINING TO THE 1ST PETITIONER Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.E1 - 3745/77 VOL. V DATED 26-03-2014 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO. PA 17 DATED 26-082014 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASST. EXE. ENGINEER WSP SUB DIVISION MALAPPURAM VIDE ORDER NO.E.3718/2011 DATED 06-01-2015 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF PENSIONARY CLAIMS OF THE 2ND PETITIONER BY LETTER NO. KWA/ AO (ESTT) /PEN:8848/COM:NON- MEDICAL)/7938/7462 DATED 04-01-2017 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. WS-B37/2022-WRD DATED 12-04-2022 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 19-04-2022 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE