High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-01-28Writ petition disposed of; no order granting in...

V.S. Vijayan v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.33134/2017

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2021-01-28
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of; the High Court held that, since all terminal benefits have already been paid, it is not a fit case to award interest for the delay in payment of terminal benefits under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; no order granting interest; terminal benefits already disbursed; no further relief granted.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V.S. Vijayan

Respondents

Kerala State Electricity Board Limited
Chief Engineer (HRM), Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.
Chief Engineer (Generation), Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.
Deputy Chief Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., Electrical Circle, Ernakulam
Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., Electrical Division, Ernakulam
Deputy Chief Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., Brahmapuram Diesel Power Plant

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Shameena Salahudheen
• S. Simy

Counsels for Respondents

• M.K. Thankappan (Senior Counsel)

Case Synopsis & Summary

V.S. Vijayan, a retired Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), filed this writ petition seeking sanction and disbursement of retirement benefits including full pension, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, Commuted Value of Pension, Pension Arrears and Dearness Relief arrears, and the attendant benefits at the earliest and with interest for the delay in payment. The facts trace to an Anti Power Theft Squad inspection in 2012 at a KSEB consumer’s premises that detected irregularities in meter reading and consumption, with a revised bill issued up to two years, following a Court judgment in a related matter (Ext.P2). The petitioner contends estoppel, arguing that no disciplinary action was initiated and the judgment was not challenged; terminal benefits were paid during pendency, so interest should be awarded. The petitioner relies on a recent decision in O.P.(CAT) No.380/2020 to claim market-rate interest. The respondents counter that a charge memo had been issued and disciplinary action could still proceed; they cite Xavier v. Kerala State Electricity Board (1979 KLT 80 (FB)). The court notes the sequence of events, including a 2014 consumer petition and the retiree’s superannuation before any departmental enquiry. Ultimately, the High Court declines to award interest under Article 226, disposes of the petition, and leaves the terminal benefits as paid without additional interest.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Estoppel

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that respondents are barred by estoppel from proceeding against him since disciplinary action was not initiated and the judgment in Ext.P2 (limiting the revised bill to two years) was not challenged. Terminal benefits were paid during the pendency, so the Court should award interest for the delay in payment of these benefits, particularly at market rate, as urged by O.P.(CAT) No.380/2020. The petitioner further argues that withholding benefits and delaying payments has caused financial hardship, and that the period of delay occurred due to the events surrounding the APTS findings and the subsequent legal proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents counter that a charge memo had been issued and disciplinary action could still proceed against the petitioner, relying on Xavier v. Kerala State Electricity Board, and argue that withholding or adjustment in benefits should be governed by departmental action and contractual/pension rules. They contend that Article 226 discretion should not automatically order market-rate interest where there are ongoing proceedings and potential disciplinary consequences.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
O.P.(CAT) No.380/2020	O.P.(CAT) No.380/2020	Mentioned Only	Cited by petitioner to support market-rate interest; court did not adopt its principle in granting interest.
Xavier v. Kerala State Electricity Board	(1979) KLT 80 (FB)	Mentioned Only	Cited by respondents to argue that disciplinary action can proceed; court did not rely on its holdings to grant relief in the present case.
W.P.(C) No. 17975/2014	W.P.(C) No. 17975/2014	Mentioned Only	Background reference to earlier consumer petition; cited for context rather than as binding precedent affecting the decision.

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 V.S. Vijayan v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. and 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 MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/8TH MAGHA, 1942** **WP(C).No.33134 OF 2017(N)** ## **PETITIONER:** **V.S. VIJAYAN, S/O. V. K. SREEDHRAN, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT VATTATHATTEL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM. (ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) (RETIRED), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., BRAHMAPURAM DIESEL POWER PLANT, BRAHMAPURAM, ERNAKULAM). BY ADVS. SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN SMT.S.SIMY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 2 CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 3 CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERATION), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, MOOLAMATTAM, IDUKKI-685589. 4 DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM-682018.** WP(C) No.33134/2017 : 2 : - **5 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ERNAKULAM-682018.** - **6 DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., BRAHMAPURAM DIESEL POWER PLANT, ERNAKULAM-682303.** **BY SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-01-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) No.33134/2017 : 3 : ## **N. NAGARESH, J.** ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` ## W.P.(C) No.33134 of 2017 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` _Dated this the 28[th] day of January, 2021_ ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The petitioner, who is a retired Assistant Executive Engineer, has filed this writ petition seeking to sanction and disburse retirement benefits due to the petitioner including pension in full, Death cum Retirement Gratuity, Commuted Value of Pension, Pension Arrears and DR arrears (Pension) and other attendant benefits attached thereto, at the earliest, within a time frame fixed by this Court. The petitioner also seeks payment of penal interest at market rate for the delay caused in payment of terminal benefits. 2. The petitioner states that during his stint as Assistant Engineer in Electrical Section, Maharajas College, Ernakulam, the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) conducted an WP(C) No.33134/2017 : 4 : inspection in the premises of a consumer of KSEB and detected power theft. Sequentially, the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 seeking explanation for delay in detecting the power theft. The petitioner submits that the consumer in question had filed a writ petition challenging the proceedings pursuant to APTS inspection and this Court as per Ext.P2 judgment directed that a revised bill shall be issued limiting the assessment to two years and the KSEB complied with the judgment. According to the petitioner, without challenging the judgment and without initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner, the respondents are estopped from proceeding against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner would submit that during the pendency of this writ petition, the respondents have paid the terminal benefits and the petitioner hence is prosecuting the writ petition only for payment of interest for the delayed payment of terminal benefits. 4. Relying on the judgment of this Court in O.P.(CAT) No.380/2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that WP(C) No.33134/2017 : 5 : the petitioner is entitled to be paid interest at market rate for the period of delay in paying terminal benefits. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of this Court in _**Xavier v. Kerala State Electricity Board** [1979 KLT 80 (FB)]_ and contended that the KSEB has issued charge memo to the petitioner and can still proceed against the petitioner. 5. Heard. 6. As all the terminal benefits have been paid to the petitioner, the question remaining is as to payment of interest for the delayed disbursal of terminal benefits. 7. The APTS conducted a surprise check in the premises of a consumer on 23.01.2012 and found power theft. Gross irregularities were noted in the meter reading, Tariff applicable and actual consumption. The irregularities were assessed for the period from January, 2008. The low consumption was as a result of installation of a faulty meter during the tenure of the petitioner. In W.P. (C)No.17975/2014 filed by the consumer, this Court found WP(C) No.33134/2017 : 6 : that there was failure on the part of the authorities of KSEB. 8. Explanation was called for from the petitioner as per Ext.P4, on 21.01.2016. The petitioner gave a reply on 22.02.2016. However, before initiation of departmental enquiry, the petitioner retired on superannuation from the KSEB. The delay in payment of terminal benefits occurred in these circumstances. 9. In the circumstances of the case, this Court does not deem it a fit case to award interest to the petitioner, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/22.01.2021 WP(C) No.33134/2017 : 7 : ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT EXHIBITS IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.17975 OF 2014.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.07.2014 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.17975 OF 2014.** - **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.12.2014. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY/EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2016 WHEREBY PETITIONER HAS BEEN RELIEVED FROM THE SERVICE OF 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 23.09.2017 ISSUED FROM INDO AMERICAN HOSPITAL BRAIN AND SPINE CENTRE, VAIKOM IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.02.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 25.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** WP(C) No.33134/2017 : 8 : **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/11/2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21/05/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT OF PENSIONARY BENEFITS DATED 05/08/2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PENSION AUTHORIZATION) ATTACHED TO THE O/o. 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF PASS BOOK PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER OF HIS SB A/c. No.57033252062, MAINTAINED AT STATE BANK OF INDIA, UDAYAMPEROOR BRANCH.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT ASSESSMENT BILL DATED 22.08.2012. EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEETS DATED 19.06.2017. EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27.11.2017.** SR