Sheela K.P. v Kerala Water Authority & Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/21ST MAGHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 29615 of 2015 () --------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ SHEELA K.P. AGED 53 YEARS W/O. LATE RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, VINAYAKAM VEEDU MRA GARDENS-5, MANAYIKULANGARA, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM-691012. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- ## 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 2. THE FINANCE MANAGER & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER OFFICE OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER - PUBLIC HEALTH CIRCLE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY KOLLAM-691001. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PROJECT DIVISION, KERALA WATER ATHORITY KOLLAM-691001. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER SUPPLY SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY KOLLAM-691001. 6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY STOCK VERIFICATION SUB DIVISION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. R1 -R 6 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29615 of 2015 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 7068/230 DTD 12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P2:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE NON LIABILITY CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER NO IPDC 77/05/VOL 2 DTD 4/8/2010 EXT.P3:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO KWA/PDN/PDK/E1-842/2010 DTD 19/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P4:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONERS HUSBAND SRI RAVEENDRAN PILLAI G ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, KOLLAM,CORPORATION DTD 17/11/2015 EXT.P5:-THE TRUE COPY OF A LEGAL HEIR-SHIP CERTIFICATE NO.C2-1597/15/K.DIS DTD 5/6/2015 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM EXT.P6:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE jma ## K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.29615 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10[th] day of February, 2016 ## J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the widow of a retired employee who has been forced to approach this Court for the retirement benefits due to her husband which were not paid even after five years of retirement. The amount of DCRG has been paid to the petitioner after the writ petition was filed. The petitioner claims interest; according to this Court, rightly so. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority has filed a counter affidavit specifically contending that there was no omission or delay on the part of the employees of the Water Authority. The learned Standing Counsel would also specifically refer to G.O(P) No.185/2002/Fin. Dated 27.03.2002 which mandate that the employee should also co-operate in getting the retirement benefits released in time, by ensuring that the Non Liability Certificate of the offices in which he/she had W.P(C) No.29615/2015 ::2:: worked, prior to retirement is received in time. Specific reference is made to paragraph (iii), which provides that it is incumbent upon the employee as well, for his own interest, to ensure that the NLC/LC from other offices in which he worked during last 3 years of his retirement, be furnished in time. 3. This Court is not convinced that the said stipulation can be relied on to ascribe any default on the employee, if the NLC is not received in time. But for the present case, even that need not be considered and the case can be examined in the light of the above stipulation itself. The employee retired on 31.03.2010. The employee had obtained NLC from three offices which is produced at Ext.P2 series. The specific reason for non-granting of DCRG is stated in Ext.P3, a communication of the Executive Engineer issued to the Finance Manager and Chief Accounts Officer, a copy of which has also been endorsed to the petitioner. The 2[nd] paragraph of the said communication is extracted hereunder: “the NLC issued by IPD Sub Division W.P(C) No.29615/2015 ::3:: Changanassery, was not in the prescribed PA17 and the incumbency period was not mentioned. The NLC issued by Water Supply Division, Kollam doesn't contain the incumbency period of the concerned officer. Moreover the NLC from Stock Verification sub Division Thiruvananthapuram was not received. Registered letters were sent to Asst. Exe.Engineer, Stock Verification Sub Division, Thiruvananthapuram on 20.1.2011 and to Asst.Ext/Engineer, IPD Sub Division, Changanasserry on 20.1.2011. The matter was intimated to Water Supply Sub Division, Kollam on 20.1.2011. But no reply has been received from the IRD Sub Division, Changanasserry and Water Supply Sub Division, Kollam. The Stock verification Sub Division, Trivandrum has reported that the NLC can be issued only after analising the liability if any in the name of concerned officer vide letter W.P(C) No.29615/2015 ::4:: No.KWA/SB/E1/NLC.LC/2009/ dt 8.2.2011. They had also reported that they are not able to do so for want of co-operation from the concerned Asst. Engineer” 4. A reading of the above extract would clearly indicate that the petitioner was not at all responsible for the delay in payment of the DCRG. The contention of the Water Authority in the counter affidavit that there were no laches on the part of the employees of the Authority is belied by the aforesaid communication at Ext.P3. One of the NLC's issued by an office, was not in the prescribed form and another did not contain any incumbency period. Yet another NLC to be issued from the stock verification sub division was never received. The Executive Engineer in Ext.P3 specifically refers to the letters issued in the year 2011 to the three offices referred to therein which was not responded to by the said offices. The said attitude is clearly indicative of gross negligence and stark indifference, especially occassioned in the case of disbursal of the DCRG to a retired employee. Such conduct of the employees in service has to be W.P(C) No.29615/2015 ::5:: deprecated and they have to be reminded that one day they also would face the same consequence of superannuation. Even in the case of pending disciplinary inquiry, which was closed later, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2008 SC1077 (S.K Dua v State of Haryana & Another) held so in Paragraph 11: “In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well-founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of W.P(C) No.29615/2015 ::6:: ## the Constitution.” 5. Considering the entire circumstances of the instant case and also the fact that the callous indifference of the irresponsible officers, resulted in the employee having passed away without being able to receive his retirement benefits, this is an apt case in which interest has to be granted for the delay occasioned. In granting such interest this Court is further fortified by the Government Order above referred, which says so in Clause v: v. Issuance of NLC/Payment of interest: At present interest on delayed payment of pensionary benefits is paid by Government to satisfy, Court directions and to avoid possible contempt, pending realization of the same from the persons responsible. For any delay beyond 1 year in cases of pending departmental/judicial action at the time of retirement and 6months in normal cases, the pension sanctioning authority/authority who is to issue consolidated NLC/LC will be personally held responsible for the delay and may be made liable to remit to Government account the interest amount before interest is actually paid by W.P(C) No.29615/2015 ::7:: Government. 6. The present rate of interest available in the commercial Banks and Co-operative Banks range between 8 to 10%. The petitioner is granted 9% interest for the DCRG amounts from 01.10.2010, six months from the date of retirement (since there is no departmental/judicial proceeding pending as per the above extract), till the date of payment. The said interest shall be paid by the Kerala Water Authority within a period of one month from today and the Water Authority would be entitled to recover such interest proportionately from the (ir-)responsible persons who were manning the offices referred to specifically in Ext.P3. Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- - (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge