M. Surendran v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-06-13
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of in part: KSRTC directed to refund Rs. 54,156 within one month or to conduct an enquiry under the principles in Rafi Masih, with interest at 6% if due; if refund option chosen, petitioner may pursue interest in a competent Forum; all contentions on interest remain open.
Final Disposition: Partially allowed; directs KSRTC to refund or conduct enquiry under Rafi Masih; leaves interest and Forum remedies open.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M. Surendran

Respondents

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC)
The District Transport Officer, KSRTC, Thiruvalla
The Superintendent, Govt. TDB Medical College, Alappuzha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• R. Rajasekharan Pillai

Counsels for Respondents

• Deepu Thankan
• Smt. Resmi Thomas

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition filed by M. Surendran, a retired KSRTC driver, challenges the withholding of retirement benefits and the recovery of a portion of his DCRG. He retired on 31 May 2020 after an on-duty accident and alleges KSRTC did not reimburse medical treatment bills, claiming the hospital was paid directly and that the balance was later credited back to KSRTC. He further asserts that Rs. 54,156 was illegally withheld from his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity without notice and without an enquiry, in derogation of the Supreme Court's declarations in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih. The KSRTC counters that medical expenses were regularized by an order dated 09.06.2022, resolving the controversy on the medical bill issue. On the recovery from DCRG, the KSRTC asserts that the employee was on Leave Without Allowances and had drawn full salary for April and May 2020, thus the deduction was valid. The learned judge, noting that the medical expense issue has been resolved, but finding fault with the DCRG recovery for lack of due process, directs the KSRTC to refund Rs.54,156 within one month or to initiate an enquiry under the principles in Rafiq Masih. If an enquiry reveals liability, interest at 6% per annum should be paid from the date of recovery. If the KSRTC refunds promptly, the petitioner may pursue forum-based relief for interest. The judgment leaves further contentions open.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Rafiq Masih (White Washer) doctrine: recovery of pensionary benefits requires due process and enquiry.
The Supreme Court's declarations in Rafiq Masih regarding notice and opportunity to be heard before recovery from DCRG.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that his medical treatment bills could not be submitted due to KSRTC's direct payment to hospital and subsequent re-crediting to KSRTC; Rs.54,156 was deducted from his DCRG without notice or an enquiry, contrary to the principles in Rafiq Masih. He seeks refund or an enquiry with hearing, and protection of pension benefits, with possible interest forum remedies. He asserts due process rights and timely resolution.

Contentions of Respondents

KSRTC asserts medical expenses were regularized by order dated 09.06.2022, and that the DCRG recovery was valid since the petitioner was on Leave Without Allowances and had drawn full salaries for April and May 2020; recovery was within internal policy and needs no beyond; the court should require compliance with due process only if a fault is found, otherwise dismiss the petition or limit remedy to enquiry under Rafi Masih.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)	2015 (4) SCC 334	Positive	Cited as controlling authority for due process in recovery from pensionary benefits; supports requirement of notice and enquiry.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 20969 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **M.SURENDRAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.LATE MADHAVAN, DRIVER RTD, KSRTC THIRUVALLA DEPOT, RESIDING AT THATTAVAZHI KIZHAKKATHIL, NADAKKAVU, PERINGALA P.O., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA 650 559.** ## **BY ADV R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA, PIN: 695 023. 2 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, THIRUVALLA, PIN-689101. 3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVT. TDB MEDICAL COLLEGE, ALAPPUZHA 688 005.** **BY ADVS. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN,SC SMT.RESMI THOMAS, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** ## **13.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C) NO. 20969 OF 2021** **-2-** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner says that he retired from the services of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) on 31.05.2020, after having worked as a Driver. According to him, he met with an accident while on duty and had to undergo extensive medical treatment. He alleges that, however, on the allegation that he has not submitted the bills for such treatment, his retiral benefits has been withheld. 2. The petitioner asserts that he could not have submitted the medical bills, because the amounts required for his surgery, including angioplasty, were credited directly by the KSRTC into the hospital and the balance was subsequently re-credited by the latter into the account of the former. He says that, therefore, he is not in a position to maintain the bills, or to produce them and that it is the KSRTC who should have got it ## **WP(C) NO. 20969 OF 2021** **-3-** directly from the hospital. 3. Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai – learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that, by an illegal action, the KSRTC has withheld an amount of Rs.54,156/- from his client's Deathcum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and that this has been done without any notice to him and in blatant violation of the declarations of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)**_ [2015 (4) SCC 334]. He reiterated that because of all these, the pension and other pensionary benefits to his client have not yet been paid; and thus prayed that the KSRTC be directed to do so, without any further delay. 4. Smt.Umul Fidha – learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC, submitted that, as regards the medical expenses of the petitioner is concerned, the same has been regularized through an order dated ## **WP(C) NO. 20969 OF 2021** **-4-** 09.06.2022, and that the objection on that count has now been removed. 5. The learned Counsel further submitted that, however, as regards the withholding of the amount of Rs.54,156/- from the DCRG of the petitioner is concerned, it has been done validly by the KSRTC, because, without noticing that the petitioner was on Leave Without Allowances (LWA), he was paid his full salary in April and May, 2020. She submitted that the recovery was made and argued that this cannot be assailed by the petitioner. 6. When I hear Smt.Umul Fidha as afore, it is indubitable that, on the issue of the medical expenses of the petitioner, the controversy has been cleared, because the amount spent for his treatment has now been regularized by the KSRTC, through an order dated 09.06.2022. 7. As far as the recovery of the amounts from ## **WP(C) NO. 20969 OF 2021** **-5-** his DCRG is concerned, I fail to understand how the KSRTC could have done so, without notice to the petitioner or without causing an enquiry, particularly in the context of the affirmative declarations by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Rafiq Masih**_ (supra). 8. Going by the said judgment, it is not available to the KSRTC to recover any amount, unless the petitioner was found guilty of having attributed to the excess payment. I do not propose to speak on this issue affirmatively at this stage, but I am certain that, if at all any such recovery had to be made, it would have to be supported by a proper enquiry, guided by _**Rafiq Masih**_ (supra). Resultantly, I order this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the KSRTC to either refund the amount of Rs.54,156/- (Rupees fifty four thousand one hundred and fifty six) withheld **WP(C) NO. 20969 OF 2021** **-6-** from the DCRG of the petitioner, within a period of one month from today; or to cause an enquiry into the same, guided by the principles in _**Rafiq Masih**_ (supra), as also on the touchstone of the question as to whether any such recovery could have been made from the DCRG even if an excess payment had been made for the months of April and May, 2020. This shall be done by the KSRTC, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. If the KSRTC adopts the second of the afore liberty and chooses to conduct an enquiry and if the amount is thereafter found due to him, then the same shall be repaid to him with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it was recovered until it is actually paid. Needless to say, if the KSRTC chooses the ## **WP(C) NO. 20969 OF 2021** **-7-** first option and releases the amounts within the period of one month as directed above, then the petitioner will have liberty to approach the competent Forum for interest on the said amount, if he is so interested; for which purpose, all contentions are left open. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** akv **WP(C) NO. 20969 OF 2021** **-8-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20969/2021** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCTORS REPORT REGARDING THE PETITIONER'S ANGIOPLASTY DT. 15.6.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 12.8.2020 FROM THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 3.2.2021 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE**