Kerala High Court
K.V.Rajendran vs Kerala State Electricity Board
Author: P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/23RD SRAVANA, 1936
WP(C).No. 16578 of 2011 (V)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
--------------------------
K.V.RAJENDRAN,
S/O.LATE T.V.VASUDEVAN, AGED 65 YEARS, "PRANAVAM",
NEAR SUBRAMANIAN TEMPLE, CHEVAYOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.SRI.THOMAS ANTONY
SRI.M.P.PRAKASH
RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
2. THE CHIEF INTERNAL AUDITOR,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM,
KOZHIKODE-673 011.
R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB
SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 14-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
WPC.NO.16578/2011 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/09/04 FROM THE ACCOUNTS
OFFICER, PENSION AUTHORISATION, KSEB.
EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/09/05 OF THE CONTROLLING
AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT IN GC.NO.87/04.
EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/08/2007 IN GAC NO.490/06 OF THE
APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972.
EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/1/2011 OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE AUDIT OBJECTION.
EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/01/2011 ADDRESSED T
OTHE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27/04/2011 OF THE
PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.
EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26/05/2011 OF THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER.
EXT.P8: COPY OF THE BOARD DATED 12/03/1992.
EXT.P9: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL PRESENTED UNDER
SECTION 7(7)OF THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT VIDE GAC 490/06.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TOJUDGE
Kss
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C)No.16578 OF 2011
.........................................................................
Dated this the 14th August, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P4 proceedings issued by the respondent Board (Kerala State Electricity Board) stating that there was some excess drawal with regard to gratuity payable to the petitioner in respect of the service rendered by him in the Board, thus seeking to recover a sum of Rs.73207/-.
2. The factual position narrated in the writ petition shows that the petitioner was originally working as a State Government employee, who subsequently got employment under the Board, and while working as Sr. Superintendent, he retired from the service of the Board on 28.02.2002. Retirement benefits including a sum of Rs.2.8 lakhs towards gratuity were paid to the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the gratuity was fixed as Rs. 2.8 lakhs, without any reference to the relevant provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which ought to have been applied for computing the figures. There was quite a number of disputes between the Board and its employees as to the manner in which gratuity payable to the employees had to be worked out. The issue has attained finality by virtue of declaration of law by W.P.(C)No.16578 OF 2011 2 this Court holding that the employees of the Board are entitled to get gratuity without ceiling, (as sought to be imposed by the Board) in tune with the relevant provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. It was accordingly, that the petitioner approached the controlling authority claiming for the balance DCRG, which was considered and appropriate orders were passed, issuing Ext.P2 notice to the Board requiring to satisfy a sum of Rs.70000/- towards balance amount payable in this regard. Though the Board took up the matter in appeal (GAC No.490/2006), the same did not turn to be fruitful. The challenge raised in this regard was repelled and the appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P3 order, confirming the order passed by the controlling authority. The matter became final and the Board satisfied the due amount to the petitioner .
3. Years after, the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 proceedings dated 11.01.2011, stating that the audit conducted in the year 2010 brought to light some excess payment of gratuity and that the petitioner was liable to return the excess amount of Rs.73207/-. A detailed calculation statement was attached therewith. The petitioner immediately approached the W.P.(C)No.16578 OF 2011 3 third respondent/Executive Engineer by filing Ext.P5 representation trying to bring out the actual facts and figures. Apprehending coercive steps, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition for immediate interference.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent/Board seeking to sustain the course and proceedings. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel at length.
5. It is the case of the respondent Board that the petitioner had actually worked only for a lesser number of years, by virtue of which there is mistake in the calculation of the actual amount payable to the petitioner, even under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It was only in the said circumstance, that the concerned authority raised objection in the audit, leading to issuance of Ext.P4. The said stand is sought to be rebutted from the part of the petitioner, stating that there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the course and proceedings. It is also pointed out that the audit objection was without any regard to the service rendered by the petitioner in the State Government, which is liable to be reckoned for computing the W.P.(C)No.16578 OF 2011 4 gratuity, by virtue of the relevant Board Order, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P8.
6. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the only question to be considered is whether the respondents are justified in issuing Ext.P4 with reference to the audit objection, as to the actual amount payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The due amount payable to the petitioner has been calculated by the controlling authority as per Ext.P2 order dated 06.09.2005, specifically mentioning the amount payable to the petitioner, which was confirmed by the appellate authority as per Ext.P3, which was duly satisfied years back. It at all any mistake was there in effecting computation, it was for the Board to have approached the authorities under the Statute, who passed Ext.P2 and P3 and to have the proceedings reviewed/modified/varied, if such a course was permissible in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. For having not pursued any such course, this Court finds that Ext. P4 is absolutely without any basis, as not issued under any known provisions of law. Ext.P4 is set aside accordingly.
7. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned W.P.(C)No.16578 OF 2011 5 Counsel for the petitioner that because of Ext.P4, arrears of Pay Revision have not been disbursed to the petitioner. In the said circumstance, there will be a direction to the respondents to disburse the pay revision benefits payable to the petitioner after computing the same, at the earliest, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, if any request is made in this regard before the competent authority.
The writ petition is allowed. No cost.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk