Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchPetition allowed

Lalithakumari B. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Case / Petition Number:OP(KAT) No. 353 of 2014 (Z)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. R. Ramachandra Menon
  • Babu Mathew P. Joseph
Judgment Date
2015-06-12
Court Decision / Holding
The Kerala High Court quashed the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order and directed the respondents to release the petitioner’s DCRG within one month from receipt of a copy of the judgment. The court left the question of interest for delayed payment open. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition
Petition allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Lalithakumari B.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • The Accountant General (A&E), Kerala
  • Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha
  • Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Director of Higher Secondary Education

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay
  • • Smt. N. Santha
  • • Sri K.A. Balan
  • • Sri Peter Jose Christo
  • • Sri S.A. Anand

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri P.M. Saneer

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Lalithakumari B., retired as District Educational Officer on 31 March 2006. Her Dearness Pension/Government Retirement Benefits (DCRG) were largely disbursed, but the DCRG portion was withheld on the ground that a liability against her had to be fixed. The liability was fixed only on 19 September 2009, beyond the statutory three-year window from retirement. The petitioner contends that such fixation, being after the pensioner status, is barred by Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) and, therefore, cannot stand in the way of releasing DCRG. She cites several decisions of this Court, including Somarajan Nair v. State of Kerala, to support release of DCRG. The respondents rebut that the Government has authority and power to proceed against the retiree for recovery of liability and may initiate civil proceedings; withholding DCRG could be permissible during recovery. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s impugned order was challenged as to the withholding of DCRG and the legality of the late fixation. The High Court, however, held that fixation after retirement beyond the three-year window cannot prevent release of DCRG and directed the respondents to release the DCRG within one month, while leaving the issue of interest for delay open.

Provisions of Law Cited

Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that she retired on 31.03.2006 and the liability fixed on 19.09.2009 is beyond the permissible three-year period from retirement. Note 3 to Rule 3, Part III of the Kerala Service Rules prohibits such late fixation, so the liability cannot stand in the way of releasing the DCRG. She relies on this Court’s decisions, including Somarajan Nair v. State of Kerala, to contend that the DCRG must be released. Government authority to recover the amount via civil suit is acknowledged, but it cannot delay or defeat the release of DCRG currently due.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government contends it has the authority to recover liabilities and may proceed against a retiree in civil proceedings. Fixation of liability can occur post-retirement, and withholding DCRG may be permissible to secure recovery. The Tribunal’s order is grounded in the Government’s power to recover and is consistent with ongoing efforts to salvage the liability from the pension benefits.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Somarajan Nair v. State of Kerala2015(2)KLT 753PositiveCited as supporting authority that liability fixation after retirement cannot block the release of DCRG; the decision aligns with the petitioner’s contention and the court’s view that DCRG must be released.

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 Lalithakumari B. v. State of Kerala and Ors. 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 MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/22ND JYAISHTA, 1937** **OP(KAT).No. 353 of 2014 (Z)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** **--------------------------** **LALITHAKUMARI.B. RETIRED DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHERTHALA RESIDING AT "JYOTHIS", CMC-11, CHERTHALA P.O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001.** ## **2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695039.** ## **3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688001.** ## **4. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION** ## **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 690514.** ## **5. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION** - **DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695001.** ## **R1-R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.M. SANEER** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **avk** **OP(KAT).No. 353 of 2014 (Z) ----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1: TRUE COPY OF T.A.NO.7385 OF 2012 (W.P.(C) NO.26472/2008) FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.11.2006 HAD SANCTIONED THE PENSION.** - **EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF DIRECTOR OF PUBIC INSTRUCTION ISSUED COMMUNICATION PAYMENT.** - **EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.11.2006 NO.10/AK/G-33723060 SANCTIONED PAY OF GRATUITY.** - **EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA, ARTHUMKAL UNDER AC.NO.10458072617.** - **ANNEXURE-A2: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED OCTOBER 2008 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS DIRECTED** - **BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.** - **ANNEXURE-A3: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 16.03.2013 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE-A4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED OCTOBER 2013 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE-A5: TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 18.06.2014 AGAINST REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **ANNEXURE-A1: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 05.03.2013 ALONG WITH FORWARDING LETTER OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR WITH LIABILITY CERTIFICATE.** - **ANNEXURE-A1(A): TRUE COPY OF TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE-A1.** - **ANNEXURE-A6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2014 IN T.A.7385/2012 (WP(C)NO.26472/2008) OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.** - **ANNEXURE-A7: TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER NO.OA(HQ) III/1/12-81/2004-05/459 DATED 10.06.2004.** - **ANNEXURE-A8 : TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT ENCLOSED WITH ANNEXURE-A7.** **(contd......3)** **ANNEXURE-A9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTENO.FIN.B5/20815/08/HSE DATED 03.09.2008 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE-A10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AUDIT ENCLOSED ALONG WITH ANNEXURE-A9.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------ANNEXURE R5(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE LIABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 19.9.2009.** //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE **avk** ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.** **============================== O.P.(KAT)No. 353 of 2014 ============================== Dated this the 12[th] day of June, 2015** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J.** The petitioner has retired from service as District Educational Officer on 31.3.2006. Her retirement benefits, except the DCRG of Rs.3,30,000/-, were disbursed to her. But, her DCRG was not released on the ground that fixing of her liability was pending. Claiming to release the DCRG, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 26472 of 2008 which was subsequently transferred to the Kerala OP (KAT) 353/2014 2 Administrative Tribunal and numbered as T.A. No. 7385 of 2012. The Tribunal considered the question and dismissed the claim of the petitioner by the impugned order. Challenging the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred this Original Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired from service on 31.3.2006. A liability, that too without any basis, has been fixed against the petitioner by the establishment only by proceedings dated 19.9.2009, i.e. beyond the period of three years. The liability, if any, has to be fixed by the Government on a retired Government employee within three years of his/her becoming pensioner as provided under Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. Here, the liability has OP (KAT) 353/2014 3 been fixed by the Government only after elapsing three years from the date of retirement. Therefore, the liability so fixed is hit by Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III of the KSR. Such a liability fixed cannot stand in the way of releasing DCRG due to the petitioner. This position is covered by so many decisions of this Court including the one in **Somarajan Nair v. State of Kerala (2015(2)KLT 753)** , submits the learned counsel. 4. The petitioner herein retired from service on 31.3.2006. Admittedly, the liability has been fixed only three years after the petitioner became a pensioner. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, such fixation of liability is hit by Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III of the KSR. Such fixation of liability cannot stand in the way of releasing the DCRG due to the petitioner. A contention raised by the learned Senior Government Pleader is that the Government have the OP (KAT) 353/2014 4 authority and power to proceed against the petitioner for recovering the amount of liability fixed by way of filing civil suit. Of course, the Government is free to move against the petitioner by way of filing civil suit. But, as of now, that cannot stand in the way of the petitioner receiving DCRG due to her. The position is covered by many decisions rendered by this Court including the one in **Somarajan Nair v. State of Kerala (** _supra_ **).** In that view of the matter, the concerned respondent among the respondents, is duty bound to release the DCRG due to the petitioner at the earliest. The impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be quashed and hence, we do so. 5. In the result, the concerned respondent among the respondents, is directed to release the DCRG due to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The claim for interest raised by the petitioner for the delayed payment of DCRG is OP (KAT) 353/2014 5 left open. This Original Petition is disposed of as above. ## **Sd/P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** **Sd/BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE** //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE **ks.**