Kerala High Court
K.B.Sudha vs Kerala Agricutural University on 17 September, 2014
Author: Dama Seshadri Naidu
Bench: Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/26TH BHADRA, 1936
WP(C).No. 23893 of 2014 (J)
---------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
K.B.SUDHA,(RETIRED SECTION OFFICER,
KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY)
HOUSE NO.TC XVIII/169 (OLD TC XIII/1096),'VAIKHARI',
NADATHARA ROAD,MANNUTHY P.O.,THRISSUR,PIN - 680 651.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SMT.N.SANTHA
SRI.K.A.BALAN
SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SRI.S.A.ANAND
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. KERALA AGRICUTURAL UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
K.A.U P.O.,VELLANIKKARA,THRISSUR - 680 656.
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,KERALA AGRICULTRUAL UNIVERSITY,
K.A.U P.O.,VELLANIKKARA,THRISSUR,PIN- 680 656.
3. COMPTROLLER,KERALA AGRICULTRUAL UNIVERSITY,K.A.U P.O.
VELLANIKKARA,THRISSUR - 680 656.
BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17-09-2014,ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.23894/2014 THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
pk
WP(C).No. 23893 of 2014 (J)
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OFTHE ORDER NO.PEN B1/42237/11(I) DT.22.6.13 OF THE
UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OFTHE ORDER NO. PEN B1/42237/11(II) DT. 22.6.13 OF THE
UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GA/A3/29617/12/L.DIS DT. 09.11.12 OF
THE UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PEN B1/42237/11 DT. 28.3.14 OF THE
UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CCA2/28309/11 DT.31.1.14 OF THE
COMPTROLLER OF THE UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.01.8.14 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMPTROLLER OF THE UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.01.8.14 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
----------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
pk
Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)Nos.23893 and 23894 of 2014
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT
Since both the writ petitions raise identical issues involving the same set of respondents, apart from the fact that all the petitioners in the both the writ petitions are the former employees of the employer, this Court disposes of the writ petitions through a common judgment.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court, having lost their substantial source of income, the salary, on retirement, when the respondent University, their employer, kept them on an interminable wait for what is otherwise their legitimate right, the retirement benefits, only as a matter of sustenance. For one reason or another, the delays, more often than not, occur in the matters of settling the terminal benefits of the superannuated staff, the respondent University being no exception. This case is yet WPC 23893&23894/14 2 another such example as to illustrate the plight of the retired employees.
3. Briefly stated, the petitioners, as the records reveal, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on different dates in 2013 from Kerala Agricultural University, their employer. Despite the lapse of about a year from the date of their retirement, so far, their terminal benefits have not been settled. All their efforts before the authorities bearing no fruit, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing these writ petitions.
4. In response to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the delay on the part of the authorities in disbursing the terminal benefits to the petitioners is unjustified, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that the respondent University does not have any intention of holding back any of the terminal benefits of the petitioners, but for the financial crunch inasmuch as the University is dependent on the Government for funds. In WPC 23893&23894/14 3 other words, the entire contention or defence on the part of the learned Standing Counsel for the University is that owing to lack of funds, the issue cannot be settled.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to my notice a judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.27285/2014 and batch, disposed of on 20.02.2014, per a learned Single Judge, under identical circumstances. This Court, on that occasion, has observed that it is for the University to find out its own resources for payment of terminal benefits due to the retired employees, and that the University cannot deny payment of retiral benefits to its employees on the pretext of financial stringency. I am in respectful agreement with the said opinion.
6. It is further pertinent to observe that, eventually, the learned Single Judge has issued the following direction in the judgment referred to above, and the same is as follows:
WPC 23893&23894/14 4
"[K]erala University [is] to formulate a priority lit of employees retired as on date, to whom payment of terminal benefits are pending due, based on their date of retirement. Eligible amounts due to the persons included in the list shall be paid within a period from 2 months to 6 months from today onwards. Payments after settling claims of each persons shall be made starting from today and all such persons included in the list shall be paid the benefits within an outer [time] limit of 6 months from today."
7. Indeed, in the present instance, the respondents are directed to follow the above procedure and settle the retiral benefits of the petitioners as well.
8. At this juncture, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that despite the time frame fixed in the judgment, dated 20.02.2014, so far, the respondent University has not complied with the direction of this Court in that batch of writ petitions. If there is any infraction, it is for the parties aggrieved to take remedial steps in that regard. Be that as it may, this Court, having not been inclined to take a different view, feels to dispose of these writ petitions in the same lines as has been done in W.P.(C) WPC 23893&23894/14 5 No.27285/2013. In this context, it is made clear that if the authorities fail to settle the issue within three months as has been originally provided, the petitioners are entitled to 6% interest on the amounts due after the lapse of initial period of three months.
These writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv