Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

C.V Somarajan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 13 March, 2014

Author: Antony Dominic

Bench: Antony Dominic, Anil K.Narendran

       

  

  

 
 
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                      PRESENT:

                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
                                                            &
                      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

             THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/3RD ASWINA, 1936

                                         OP(KAT).No. 295 of 2014 (Z)
                                               ----------------------------


                 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TA 3131/2012 of KERALA
         ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 13-03-2014

PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANT IN T.A.:
-------------------------------------------------

            C.V SOMARAJAN NAIR
            JOINT BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
            (RETIRED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE BDO, PANDALAM)
            RESIDING AT : CHELLADATHU, EZHUMATTOOR (PO)
            PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

            BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
                          SRI.R.REJI
                          SMT.THARA THAMBAN
                          SRI.B.BIPIN
                          SRI.ARUN BOSE

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN T.A.:
-----------------------------------------------------------

        1. STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
            DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
            GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001

        2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT,L.M.S
           COMPOUND,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001.

        3. THE ASST.DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER,
            RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATHANAMTHITTA
            PIN 689 645

        4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
            KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 508

        5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
            PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN 689 501

OP(KAT) NO.295/14                    -2-




    6. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(KERALA),
      THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695 001


       BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL

        THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL   HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION   ON   25-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

OP(KAT).No. 295 of 2014 (Z)
----------------------------

                                            APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------


EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 31426/ESTT,.B2/98/CRD DT 28-10-1998

ISSUED BY COMMISSIONER

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER DATED 23-09-2008

ISSUED BY THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO 1385 DT 10-12-2008 ALONG WITH AUDIT

REPORT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT




RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
---------------------------------------

                                           //True Copy//

                                          PA TO JUDGE


Rp



           ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
          ===============================
                       OP (KAT) No. 295 of 2014
                    ====================

            Dated this the 25th day of September, 2014

                              J U D G M E N T

Antony Dominic, J.

This OP is filed by the applicant in TA No.3131/12, who is aggrieved by the order dated 13th of March, 2014 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Petitioner, who was a Joint Block Development Officer under the respondents, retired from service on 31/8/2008. His prayer in the T.A. was mainly to direct the respondents to release the DCRG amount due to him. The Tribunal by the impugned order directed DCRG amount to be released to the petitioner after deducing an amount of `75,095/- with 9% interest from 1/12/2008 till the date of payment. It was further directed that the 2nd respondent shall finalise the liability taking into account the objection of the petitioner also.

3. In this O.P., the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the provisions contained in Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR, liability cannot be fixed beyond the period of three years and that recovery cannot be effected based on such fixation of liability from the DCRG due. Counsel also relied on the OP(KAT) No.295/14 : 2 :

Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ratheesh S. Nair v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2014 (2) KLJ 858) to buttress the said contention. Therefore, according to him, direction of the Tribunal entitling the respondents to deduct `75,095/- with 9% interest thereon from 1/12/2008 from the DCRG due to him is illegal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

5. According to the learned Government Pleader, in pursuance of the orders passed by the Tribunal, by order dated 9/7/14, the liability of the petitioner has been fixed at `1,00,144/-. In this OP, we are only concerned with the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal entitling the respondents to withhold a part of the DCRG due to the petitioner towards the liability that is due from him.

6. The recovery from DCRG is permissible only if it is otherwise provided in the provisions of KSR. Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR and also the terms of Rule 116 fixes a time limit for such an action to three years from the date of retirement. In so far as this case is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on 31/8/2008. If that be so, recovery from the DCRG OP(KAT) No.295/14 : 3 :

based on fixation could have been possible only if the liability is fixed within three years from the date of retirement. This position is also covered by the Division Bench judgment referred above. If that be so, the direction of the Tribunal entitling the respondents to withhold `75,095/- together with interest at 9% from 1/12/2008 cannot be sustained.

7. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal entitling the respondents to withhold an amount of `75,095/- with 9% interest from 1/12/2008 till the date of payment and order that the entire gratuity due to the petitioner shall be released to him. However, it is clarified that this judgment will not in any manner affect the right of the respondents to recover the amount, if any, due to them in accordance with the provisions of law. The above directions shall be complied with, at any rate, within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

OP(KAT) is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE Rp As per order dated 23/10/2014 in I.A 14087/2014 in OP(KAT) OP(KAT) No.295/14 : 4 :

295/2014, the 7th paragraph of the judgment dated 25/09/2014 in OP (KAT) 295/2014 is clarified as follows:
"It is clarified that as ordered by the Tribunal, the petitioner will be entitled to 9% interest on the gratuity that is payable to him."

Sd/-

Registrar (Judicial) OP(KAT) No.295/14 : 5 :

//True Copy// PA to Judge