High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-06-10Writ petition dismissed

T. Balakrishnan v. Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.31640/2011 (D)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. ASHA
Judgment Date: 2016-06-10
Court Decision / Holding: W.P.(C) No.31640 of 2011 dismissed. No relief for payment of interest; delays explained by suspension and pay fixation processes; no statutory entitlement to interest is found; petition fails.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

T. Balakrishnan

Respondents

Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode
District Educational Officer, Kozhikode
Assistant Educational Officer, Feroke
Head Master, Ganapat A.U.P. School

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SMT. BINDU GEORGE

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. REJI JOSEPH

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner T. Balakrishnan, a retired assistant teacher of Ganapat A.U.P. School, Ramanattukara, filed WP(C) No.31640 of 2011 seeking salary arrears, retirement benefits and interest, and a direction to consider his representation. The petitioner alleges harassment by the then Headmaster, Ramachandran, leading to a criminal case and delay in payment of dues; arrears of pay for 1992–1999 and DCRG were released only after directives and orders, and interest on delayed payments is sought. The respondents contend that the delay in disbursement occurred in a complex administrative context, including suspension and multiple disciplinary proceedings, and that pay revision and “re-option” for a higher grade constrain entitlement to arrears. They rely on government orders (G.O.s) issued after, and explain that the period of suspension was not properly regularized for pension or eligible leave, thus delaying benefits only to the extent permitted by rules and prior judgments. The court notes the absence of any statutory provision for interest and observes that payment of interest on delayed monetary benefits is not automatic; it depends on factual circumstances. Citing prior judgments (O.P. No.14798 of 1997 and W.A. No.2036/1999), the court clarifies background but ultimately finds no willful delay by authorities. The petition is dismissed, with no order for interest or release of further arrears beyond already provided.

Provisions of Law Cited

G.O.(Rt). No.374/2011/G.E dated 27.01.2011G.O.(P)399/(178)/99/Fin dated 05.02.1999

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Interest on delayed payment of monetary benefits is not automatic; there must be statutory provision or clear justification in factual circumstances.
No willful delay; the petitioner must prove fault or intentional withholding by authorities; otherwise relief may be denied.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that salary arrears and retirement benefits, including DCRG, were delayed due to harassment by the then Headmaster and seeks interest for the belated payments; reliance on Vijayan v. State of Kerala to justify payment of interest on delayed retirement benefits. He asserts unauthorised withholding and argues that the government is bound to compensate for the delay.

Contentions of Respondents

The government pleader contends that there is no statutory provision mandating payment of interest on delayed monetary benefits and that the delay, if any, arose from suspension and ongoing disciplinary and pay-fixation processes, including a valid re-option for higher grade. They reference G.O.s and prior judgments to explain that arrears for 1997–1999 were not admissible under pay revision and that suspensions were regularized only later; no willful delay attributable to the authorities is established.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Vijayan v. State of Kerala	1994 (1) KLT Short Notes page 8	Mentioned Only	Petitioner relied on this decision to support payment of interest on delayed retirement benefits, but the court did not adopt that proposition due to absence of statutory footing.
O.P.No.14798 of 1997	Judgment dated 04.08.1999	Mentioned Only	Judgment cited in background to describe prior orders on suspension and related pension/leave issues; not treated as controlling authority in the present decision.
W.A.No.2036/1999	W.A.No.2036/1999	Mentioned Only	Division Bench judgment cited to illustrate that punishment for suspension lies within the discretion of the competent authority; referenced as background rather than as binding precedent for the current petition.

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 T. Balakrishnan v. Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode & Others 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 SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/20TH JYAISHTA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 31640 of 2011 (D)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** **----------------------** **T. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, NELLIOLI HOUSE, MORIKKARA.P.O., KAKKODI KOZHIKODE. (RETD. ASST. TEACHER, GANAPAT AUP SHOOL, RAMANATTUKARA).** ## **BY ADV. SMT.BINDU GEORGE** **RESPONDENT(S):** **-----------------------------** **1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,** - **KOZHIKODE. PIN-673 001** **2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,** - **KOZHIKODE. PIN-673 001** **3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, FEROKE. PIN-673 007** **4. THE HEAD MASTER, GANAPAT A.U.P. SCHOOL, RAMANATTUKARA. PIN-673 633** ## **R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.REJI JOSEPH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C).NO.31640/2011** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1 THE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED 8-1-2009. EXT.P2 THE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E4/746/09 DATED 1-4-2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 THE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE COUNSEL OF THE PETITIONER DATED 24-1-2009. EXT.P4 THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09-08-2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **P.V.ASHA J.** **-------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.31640 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------** Dated this the 10[th] day of June, 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to pay his salary arrears and retirement benefits along with interest. There is a further prayer for a direction to respondents to consider his representation. 2. Petitioner was working as Assistant teacher in Ganapat A.U.P. School, Ramanattukara, which is an aided School. He was at loggerheads with the Headmaster, one Shri.Ramachandran and petitioner had to file even a criminal case against the then Headmaster. The petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2001. It is his case that on account of the harassment from then Headmaster, a sum of Rs.24648/- was withheld from his DCRG till it was released on the basis of the order passed by the Lokayauktha on 13.01.2004. Similarly it is stated that the arrears of pay for the period from March 1992 to April 1999 was disbursed to him only on 30.12.2003 and arrears W.P.(C) No.31640 of 2011 2 of pay for the period from April 1999 to March 2001 was paid only on 13.05.2003. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to interest for the delayed payments. 3. The 1[st] respondent, the Deputy Director of Education, has filed a counter affidavit stating that Government had rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner complaining delay on the part of the Headmaster in settling his claim, as per G.O.(Rt). No.374/2011/G.E dated 27.01.2011. It is stated that the petitioner was placed under suspension several times and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Regarding the arrears of salary claimed by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner had exercised re-option for higher grade with effect from 01.01.1997 in accordance with G.O.(P)399/(178)/99/Fin dated 05.02.1999. As per that order and on the basis of option exercised by petitioner, he was eligible for the monetary benefits only with effect from 12.04.1999, the date of exercise of option and therefore he is not entitled to arrears of pay for the period from 1.1.1997 to 11.4.1999. It is stated that due to W.P.(C) No.31640 of 2011 3 the re-option exercised by him, his pay was re-fixed, when it was found that a sum of Rs. 48858/- was drawn in excess and on adjusting the same from the arrears of pay, a sum of Rs.24,648/- was fixed as liability, taking into account the subsistence allowance paid to him during the period of suspension. It is further stated that on regularisation of the suspension period as duty, the amount due towards the salary on account of regularization of period of suspension and the amount due towards DCRG were already drawn and disbursed. It is further stated that the petitioner's pay on account of the fixation for the period from 3/92 to 11.04.1999 was disbursed on 30.12.2003, on directions from the Up-Lokayauktha. It is also stated that as per the pay revision orders, arrears of pay for the period from 01.01.1997 to 11.04.1999 is not admissible. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that in the judgment dated 04.08.1999 in O.P.No.14798 of 1997, in which the petitioner was the 4[th] respondent, this Court had directed that the denial of salary for the period during which the W.P.(C) No.31640 of 2011 4 petitioner was kept under suspension—23.8.1995 to 11.8.1997 should be treated as punishment. Thereafter, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.2036/1999 directed that punishment to be awarded shall be the discretion of the competent authority, the Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode. It is stated that subsequent to that judgment, the Manager initiated disciplinary proceedings and issued orders to the effect that the period of suspension would not be reckoned for pension or eligible leave. But the Assistant Educational Officer as per his proceedings dated 04.12.2000 rejected the approval for those proceedings. Thereafter, petitioner's pensionary benefits were allowed reckoning the period of his suspension. It is therefore stated that there was no willful delay in disbursement of the salary or retirement benefits due to the petitioner and it was only on account of the fact that the period of suspension was not regularized that the payments happened to be deferred. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the W.P.(C) No.31640 of 2011 5 petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment in **Vijayan v. State of Kerala** [1994 (1) KLT Short Notes page 8] in support of her contention that interest is liable to be paid on delayed payment of retirement benefits and the same is to be recovered from the concerned officers who were responsible for the delay. 6. In this context it is relevant to note that the respondents filed a counter affidavit as early as on 04.10.2012, explaining the circumstances under which the arrears of salary as well as the retirement benefits were paid/delayed. It is stated that the petitioner was kept under suspension and there were several disciplinary proceedings pending against him and it was only after the regularization of the period of suspension that on account of the judgments including the one in W.A.No.2036/1999 that the period of suspension was regularized thereafter. Similarly, it is also stated that as per the orders on pay revision the petitioner was not entitled to arrears of pay for the period from 1997-1999 and the benefits on W.P.(C) No.31640 of 2011 6 account of the re-option was admissible only with effect from the date of option. 7. The respondents have thus explained the reasons for the delay occurred in the payment, which remain un-controverted. Petitioner has not stated whether he had claimed interest when he approached the Up-Lokayauktha or if not the reason for the same. Payment of interest on delayed payment of monetary benefits is not a routine matter. There is no statutory provision for payment of interest. Each case depends upon the factual circumstances arising in the case. Therefore, I do not find any reason, to direct payment of interest. At any rate, petitioner does not have a case that any of the departmental authorities willfully delayed either the arrears of pay or the retirement benefits. The complaint of the petitioner is that the Headmaster who was in loggerheads with him delayed the payments in order to harass him. In case the petitioner is having any complaint against the then Headmaster, who is not even impleaded in this writ petition, it is up to the petitioner to W.P.(C) No.31640 of 2011 7 approach the civil court for appropriate remedy, if available. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.** AS/16/06/16