High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2011-02-24Petition allowed; directions issued to refix pe...

M.B. Muhammed Koya & Dinesan K. v. Cochin University of Science and Technology, State of Kerala, The Accountant General (A&E) Kerala, and Deputy Director (HG) Local Fund Audit (Addl. R4)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.11730/2010

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: T.R. Ramachandran Nair
Judgment Date: 2011-02-24
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed. The University is directed to refix the petitioners’ pensionary benefits in terms of pay fixation after sanctioning the time-bound higher grades, with arrears quantified and the balance amount disbursed within two months from the judgment’s copy. No costs.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; directions issued to refix pensionary benefits and disburse arrears within two months; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M.B. Muhammed Koya
Dinesan K.

Respondents

Cochin University of Science and Technology
State of Kerala
The Accountant General (A&E) Kerala
Deputy Director (HG) Local Fund Audit (Addl. R4)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Jaju Babu
• M.U. Vijayalakshmi
• Brijesh Mohan
• T.R. Sadeesan
• T.S. Shyam Prasanth

Counsels for Respondents

• S. P. Aravindakshan Pillai
• M.R. Sreelatha

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two retired employees of the Cochin University contend that their pensionary benefits were under-calculated due to audit objections, despite prior sanction and Syndicate decisions. The petitioners, M.B. Muhammed Koya (LD Driver, RTD) and Dinesan K. (Boatman, RTD) state that they were granted pension at a reduced rate following an audit objection, even though Exts. P3–P4 show sanctioning orders and Exts. P5–P6 reflect computed pension arrears intended to be paid. They point to Exts. P13–P14, where the Syndicate decided to release the withheld DCRG and to regularise time-bound higher grades, and to Exts. P15–P16 (two earlier judgments) demonstrating that similar issues were resolved in their favor, with directions to pay the eligible pensionary benefits. The University explains that audit objections by the Local Fund Audit Wing related to the time-bound higher grades necessitated recovery, and that revised calculations require government concurrence, a matter contested by Exts. P13–P14. The court, citing W.P.(C) No. 5908/2005 and the related Sreedharan v. Union of India (2002 (1) KLT 444) precedent, holds that Syndicate decisions on time-bound higher grades are within its statutory authority, and mere audit objections cannot defeat those benefits when the underlying Syndicate decision stands. Consequently, the petition is allowed: the University must refix pensionary benefits in light of the time-bound higher grades, with arrears quantified and the balance disbursed within two months, no costs.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the Syndicate had decided to release full pensionary benefits after addressing time-bound higher grades and that audit objections cannot undo the benefits once such decisions were implemented. They rely on Exts. P13–P14 (Syndicate decisions) and Exts. P15 and P16 (earlier judgments) to show that similar relief was granted in comparable cases, including W.P.(C) No. 5908/2005 and W.P.(C) No. 18276/2005, where the court directed release of pensionary amounts. They urge refixation of pension from pay fixation with arrears and prompt disbursement. respondents:The respondents emphasize audit objections raised by Local Fund Audit Wing concerning time-bound higher grades and argue that revised calculations require government concurrence; they acknowledge Exts. P13–P14 but contend that recovery of excess amounts may be warranted while awaiting government ratification. They rely on audit objections to justify withholding or recovering amounts, arguing that proper corrections must be made in line with statutory authority and government concurrence.

Contentions of Respondents

(As above)

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sreedharan v. Union of India	2002 (1) KLT 444	Positive	The judgment relies on the Division Bench decision in Sreedharan v. Union of India to affirm that the Syndicate’s decision regarding time-bound higher grades falls within its statutory authority; payments based on such decisions cannot be reversed merely due to audit objections.
W.P.(C) No. 5908/2005	—	Positive	The Court cites W.P.(C) No. 5908/2005 to support the view that as long as a Syndicate decision stands and payments have been effected, mere audit objections cannot justify recovery; this precedent underpins the present relief.
W.P.(C) No. 18276/2005	—	Positive	The Court notes Ext. P16 (W.P.(C) No.18276/2005) where similar circumstances warranted releasing pensionary benefits, reinforcing the relief granted here.
W.P.(C) Nos. 6406/2005 and 6809/2005	—	Mentioned Only	Referenced as related judgments without explicit application or outcome in the present decision.
WP.30649/07	—	Mentioned Only	Cited as a related prior decision of this Court; no direct application stated in the present order.

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 M.B. Muhammed Koya & Dinesan K. v. Cochin University of Science and Technology, State of Kerala, The Accountant General (A&E) Kerala, and Deputy Director (HG) Local Fund Audit (Addl. R4) 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 T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR** **THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932** ## **WP(C).No. 11730 of 2010(M)** **----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **------------------------** **1. M.B.MUHAMMED KOYA, LD DRIVER (RTD) SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCNIN, RESIDING AT LADEPPADY, KOUSALYA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA.P.O. COCHIN-682026.** **2. DINESAN.K., BOATMAN(RETD), SCHOOL OF OCEAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN, RESIDING AT MANALPARAMBU, CHERIYAPALLANTHURUTHU, NORTH PARAVUR.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.R.SADEESAN** **SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **------------------------** **1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN-682022, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETRY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.** ## **3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(A&E) KERALA, TRIVANDRUM.** **tss** ## **W.P.(C) NO.11730/2010** ## ***ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED** **4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (HG) LOCAL FUND AUDIT, UNIVERSITY AUDIT WING, COCHIN UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY KOCHI 682 022** ***ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 17.1.2011 IN IA. 823/2011 IN WPC. 11730/2010.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHIN UNIVERSITY R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R4** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **W.P.(C) NO.11730/2010** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** ## **P1:- COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE DTD. 25.5.07 OF THE IST PETITIONER, ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** **P2:- COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE DTD. 28.11.2007 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** **P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FIN. IV/354/P/2007 -08 DT. 9.10.07 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** ## **P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FIN. IV/371/P/2007-08 DTD. 3.11.07 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** ## **P5:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS LEGITIMATELY DUE TO THE IST PETITIONER.** **P6:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS LEGITIMATELY DUE TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.** **P7:- COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITINER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 18.10.07.** ## **P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.A3/214/72 DTD. 12.1.99 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** **P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FIN. IV/203/P/2003-04 DTD. 10.10.03 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** **P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FIN.IV/222/0/2004-05 DTD. 7.5.04 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** **P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FIN.IV/PEN-R-2004-05 DTD. 21.2.2007 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** **P12:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FIN.IV/PEN.R-2004/388 DTD. 21.2.2007 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** **P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.A1/20843/93 DTD. 27.8.08 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** **P14:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.A5/175/NLC/2000 DTD. 26.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** **P15:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 2.7.08 IN WP.30649/07 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** ## **W.P.(C) NO.11730/2010** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** **R1(a):- COPY OF THE SYNDICATE RESOLUTION DTD. 18.12.2004. R1(b):- COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE SYNDICATE. R4(a):- GOVT.LR.NO.26982/B2/2000/H.EDN. DTD. 5.8.2004. R4(b):- GOVT. LR. NO.35043/B1/08/H.EDN. DTD. 10.2.09. R4(c):- GOVT. LR. NO.6397/B2/2002/H.EDN. DTD. 5.11.02.** ## **TRUE COPY** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **W.P.(C) No. 11730 of 2010-M** **- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011.** ## **JUDGMENT** The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the second respondent to disburse the full pensionary benefits due to the petitioners in terms of Exts.P5 and P6. 2. The petitioners retired from service as LD Driver and Boatman from the service of the first respondent University. The pension and other benefits were sanctioned, according to the petitioners, on a lesser rate, in the light of an audit objection. They were sanctioned as per Exts.P3 and P4 proceedings. The eligible benefits have been quantified by the petitioners and Exts.P5 and P6 are the corresponding statements. The first petitioner submitted a request accordingly, as per Ext.P7. A similar request was made by the second petitioner also. 3. It is stated that the first petitioner was inducted to technical cadre as per Ext.P8 order dated 12.1.1999. Two other persons, viz. M/s. P.A. Abubaker and P.P. Raman who were inducted similarly to the technical cadre, were given full pensionary benefits as per Exts.P9 and P10 orders. They were also given the revised pensionary benefits as per Exts.P11 and wpc 11730/2010 2 P12. 4. It is pointed out that the Syndicate as per Ext.P13, decided to release the withheld DCRG and thereafter, as per Ext.P14 the Syndicate resolved to regularise the time bound higher grades, against which there was audit objection, and to fix the pension. It is pointed out that even thereafter, the eligible benefits have not been disbursed. Reliance is placed on Ext.P15 judgment of this Court and along with I.A. No.16484/2010 the petitioners have produced Ext.P16 judgment in W.P.(C) No.18276/2005 wherein, under similar circumstances directions were given by this Court to release the eligible amount as pensionary benefits. 5. The stand of the University as evident from the counter affidavit is that audit objections were raised by the Local Fund Audit Wing of the Government and they were with regard to the time bound higher grade sanctioned to the petitioners and accordingly they have directed to recover the excess amount. It is stated in para 11 that as per Ext.P13 order, the decision of the Syndicate to release the withheld amount was conveyed. Accordingly, the DCRG of all the employees who have retired from the University service having audit objections relating to the sanctioning of the time bound higher grades have been released. Ext.P14 proceedings is also admitted. It is further explained that the Deputy Director of Local Fund wpc 11730/2010 3 Audit has not admitted the revised calculations pointing out that the Syndicate decision conveyed through Ext.P4 order needs concurrence/ratification from the Government. It is further reiterated in para 13 that the Syndicate has resolved to regularise the time bound higher grade sanctioned to the pensioners. The fourth respondent has also filed a counter affidavit supporting the audit objections. 6. Similar issues were considered by this Court in Exts.P15 and P16 judgments. Therein, reliance was placed on the judgment in W.P.(C) No.5908/2005. This Court therein took the view that Syndicate is the competent authority to take a decision as per the Statutes with regard to the grant of time bound higher grade and as long as the decision stands, the University cannot go back on it. Para 5 of the said judgment is extracted below: “From the above facts, it is clear that petitioner was given the benefits based on a Syndicate decision as evidenced by Ext.P1 dated 13.5.2002. The syndicate is the competent authority as empowered under the Statute and its decision is well within its jurisdiction. As per the counter affidavit also, the University took up the matter with the Government to waive the audit objection. The only reason for issuing Ext.P6 is based on an audit objection and the Government did not agree with the view of the Syndicate. But the fact remains that the decision in Ext.P1 is not yet revoked or cancelled by any wpc 11730/2010 4 subsequent decision of the Syndicate. No materials whatsoever is also placed cancelling such decision. So long as Ext.P1 stands and payment having been effected based on the Syndicate decision, the question arises as to how any recovery could be made and any liability could be fastened based on a mere audit objection. If the Syndicate decision was in any way wrong, then necessarily, the University ought to have corrected its decision, in which case, such later decision of the Syndicate could be the basis of fastening any liability or recovery thereafter.” In the judgment in W.P.(C) No.5908/2005, the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in **Sreedharan v. Union of India** (2002 (1) KLT 444) was relied upon. The judgment in W.P.(C) No.5908/2005 was followed in Ext.P16 judgment also. Therein, in para 4 reference was made to the judgments in W.P.(C) Nos.6406/2005 and 6809/2005 and other similar decisions of this Court. 7. In the light of the above and in the light of the decision of the Syndicate reflected in Ext.P14, the petitioners are entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the University to refix the pensionary benefits of the petitioners in terms of the pay fixation from time to time after sanctioning the time bound higher grades and arrears in that regard will be quantified and the balance amount wpc 11730/2010 5 less the amount already paid, will be disbursed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. **(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)** ## **kav/**