Sobha P.K. v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 8230 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER:** SOBHA.P.K., AGED 57 YEARS VETTATH, 67/162/C, BG ROAD, P.O- WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE (RETIRED HEAD TEACHER, PUTHOOR UP SCHOOL, PUTHIYANGADI, KOZHIKODE). BY ADVS. K.RAKESH ROSHAN THUSHARA.V ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMANT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THETHE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 69514 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE OFFICE OF THE HE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 4 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, KERALA OFFICE OF THE THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695039 5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHEVAYOOR KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673032 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SURYA BINOY, SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 8230 OF 2023 2 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **-----------------------------W.P.(C)No. 8230 of 2023** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of March, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is a retired Head Teacher and she retired after a long service of 34 years. The grievance of the petitioner is that her DCRG amount is not disbursed even now, even though she retired from service on 31.05.2021. The petitioner started her service as UPSA at Puthoor UP School under the respondent on 24.06.1987. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Head Teacher and she continued till her retirement. After the retirement of the petitioner, though the pension was sanctioned and paid to the petitioner, the DCRG amount of `14,00,000/- was not paid is the grievance. It is also stated that the petitioner submitted a bond as per WP(C) NO. 8230 OF 2023 3 G.O(P)No.67/2020/Fin dated 27.05.2020, by which it is ordered to disburse the DCRG of the retired hands on execution of a bond for the possible dues if any in audit objection. Ext.P2 is the Government order and Ext.P1 is the verification report of the 4[th] respondent relating to pension order of the petitioner. It is alleged that the inspection wing under the 3[rd] respondent recovered a bill book of a commercial establishment from the drawer of the petitioner's office and it is alleged that the same is misused for meeting the expense of noon feeding. It is the case of the petitioner that, so far the amount of liability is not finalised and hence the DCRG of the petitioner ought not have been withheld is the contention. It is also the contention of the petitioner that, as per Rule 116(5) of part III KSR, if liability could not be assessed on retirement, efforts should be made to assess and adjust recoverable dues within a period of one year from the date of retirement. It is further WP(C) NO. 8230 OF 2023 4 stated that, on failure of the above said condition, the amount with held from the death-cum-retirement gratuity has to be refunded. The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in **Secretary to Government and Others v. C.Vijayan** [2020 (3) KHC 163]. Hence it is submitted that the DCRG of the petitioner is to be disbursed forthwith. 2. Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2021. It is also an admitted fact that no steps are taken to fix the liability of the petitioner for the alleged misconduct for a period of one year from the date of retirement. If that is the case, as per the dictum laid down by this Court in **C.Vijayan** 's case (supra), the petitioner is entitled for DCRG. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment: WP(C) NO. 8230 OF 2023 5 _“9. Therefore, on an appreciation of the provisions of law discussed above and the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in the judgments discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the recovery could be effected against a pensioner from the death-cum-retirement gratuity, if any amounts are due to the pensioner, irrespective of the expiry of the period on retirement. However, Ruling No.5 of Rule 116 of the KSR makes it clear that if the liabilities could not be assessed and fixed before the retirement of the Government employees, efforts should be made to assess and adjust the recoverable dues within a period of one year from the date of retirement of the Government employee concerned. Therefore, there is a clear duty cast upon the Government to pay the amount towards DCRG, if the liability is not fixed within one year from the date of retirement of the Government employee. It is true, if there is any amount due towards the Government, it could be recovered by resorting to the procedure prescribed under note 2 to Rule 3 Part III KSR. Therefore, on a harmonious reading of the provisions discussed above, it is explicit that the amount due towards the death-cum-retirement gratuity ought to have been paid to the first respondent since the liability was not assessed and fixed either before the retirement or within a period of one year from the date of retirement of the first respondent. It is also clear from Bernard (supra) that_ WP(C) NO. 8230 OF 2023 6 _if it is found that there is negligence on the part of the Government to pay the amount, compensation can be imposed. That apart, we find that the amount due from the petitioner was only Rs.6,755/-. However, the entire gratuity specified above was detained by the Government which was irrational, unreasonable and arbitrary.”_ 4. In the light of the above dictum laid down by this Court, the petitioner is entitled to get the DCRG. The payment of interest for the delay in payment of DCRG is left open. If any liability is fixed and the same is recoverable from the petitioner as per law, the respondents are free to do the same in accordance with law with notice to the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner: i. Respondents 1 to 5 are directed to disburse the DCRG amount due to the petitioner as assessed and shown in Ext.P1, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy WP(C) NO. 8230 OF 2023 7 of this judgment. ii. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the respondents for compliance. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** WP(C) NO. 8230 OF 2023 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8230/2023** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT FROM 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 3/8/2022. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERMENT ORDER WIT G.O(P) 67/2020 DATED 27/5/2020. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BOND DATE 24/2/2023 FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 5TH RESPONDENT AS PER EXHIBIT P-2 WITH READABLE COPY. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE