Kerala High Court
P.P.Vasu vs The Assistant Educational Officer on 16 February, 2021
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.15006 OF 2011(A)
PETITIONER:
P.P.VASU
AGED 58 YEARS,
RETIRED HEADMASTER, M.I.U.P.S.KUTTIYADI,
VARADA HOUSE, P.O.MOILOTHARA, KOZHIKODE-673 513.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.R.SREEJITH
SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR
RESPONDENT:
THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
KUNNUMMAL SUB DISTRICT, KUNNUMMEL, MOKERI P.O.,
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.15006 OF 2011 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to have retired as a Headmaster from the 'M.I.U.P.S.', Kuttiyadi, Kozhikode, on 26.09.2008 and he alleges that 90% of his DCRG was paid only on 09.03.2010, while the balance 10% was paid only on 18.01.2011. He, therefore, prays that the respondent be directed to pay him interest for the delay caused, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. Shri.P.R.Sreejith, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that his client was on leave from 02.06.2008 and that he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 26.09.2008; and therefore, that the respondent ought to have ensured that his retirement papers were processed in time, so as to enable him to obtain his retiral benefits within the shortest period after the said date.
3. The petitioner alleges that, WP(C).No.15006 OF 2011 3 however, instead of doing so, the respondent issued Ext.P2 letter to him saying that report from the District Project Officer of "Sarva Siksha Abhiyan" (SSA) had not been received and that his 90% DCRG can be paid only on the same being obtained.
4. The petitioner contends that Ext.P2 is malafide, because the internal audit of the SSA was already available on file and that it was not necessary for the respondent to have issued the said communication to him. He says that, therefore, the action of the respondent is wholly illegal, thus entitling his client to obtain interest for the period of delay caused in disbursement of his DCRG.
5. In response to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner as afore, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Shri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that there has been no deliberate or inordinate delay in disbursement of the petitioner's benefits, as WP(C).No.15006 OF 2011 4 is evident from the pleadings on record, because he retired on 26.09.2008 and he was notified by Ext.P2 on 29.01.2010, that unless the Non Liability Certificate is issued by the Project Director of the SSA, he cannot be paid 90% of the DCRG, as had been requested by him. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the Non-Liability Certificate from the SSA was received only after 18.08.2009, as is clear from Ext.P3 and that within a few months thereafter, 90% of the DCRG amount had been paid to the petitioner.
6. The learned Senior Government Pleader added that, thereafter, an audit objection was raised against the petitioner, as is evident from Ext.P4 dated 21.1.2010, which was replied by the petitioner through Ext.P5 dated 27.2.2010; and that this was followed by Ext.P6 audit objection dated 06.05.2010 concerning the period between 01.05.2004 to 31.03.2009 which includes the time when the petitioner was in service. He WP(C).No.15006 OF 2011 5 submitted that though the petitioner does not appear to have produced the reply to Ext.P6 on record, the respondent considered it also and then released the balance 10% on 18.1.2011. He thus asserted that there was absolutely no delay in payment of the retiral benefits of the petitioner and thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
7. I have considered the afore submissions and I have also gone through the materials available on record.
8. It is indubitable that the petitioner retired on 26.09.2008. Subsequently, by Ext.P2 dated 29.01.2010, he was notified by the respondent that until the Project Director of the SSA issued the Non Liability Certificate, 90% of his DCRG cannot be released as requested by him. The Non Liability Certificate of the Project Director of SSA was issued only after 18/08/2009, as is manifest from Ext.P3; which then caused WP(C).No.15006 OF 2011 6 the respondent to pay the petitioner 90% of his DCRG on 09/03/2010. Obviously, therefore, the delay, if at all any, during this period is about seven months and the petitioner says that he is entitled to interest for this and for the earlier period also.
9. That said, as far as disbursement of the balance 10% DCRG is concerned, it is available on record that Ext.P4 Audit Objections had been raised on 21.1.2010 - which, pertinently, is even before the 90% disbursement had been made - and that this was replied to by the petitioner through Ext.P5 on 27.2.2010. However, since further objections were raised, as is evident from Ext.P6 dated 06.05.2010, for the period between 01.05.2004 to 31.03.2009, the petitioner was directed to explain the same, as far as it related to the time when he was in service. Even though the explanation of the petitioner has not been placed on record, it is stated by both sides that he furnished WP(C).No.15006 OF 2011 7 the same and that this led to the balance 10% to be disbursed to him on 18/01/2011.
10. On this count I cannot find any delay, since the petitioner has not produced averred about his reply to Ext.P6, even in the pleadings of this case.
11. Therefore, as is indubitable from the afore, the only period that engages my mind as far as delay is concerned, is between 18.08.2009 - being the date of Ext.P3, and 09.03.2010 - being the date on which 90% of the DCRG of the petitioner had been paid. There is absolutely nothing on record from the side of the respondents to explain why there was further delay after Ext.P3 had been obtained on 18.08.2009 and this is pertinent because 90% of the DCRG was paid to the petitioner on 09.03.2010, even when Ext.P4 audit objections had been raised on 21.1.2010. Obviously, therefore, it is clear that the delay in making the payment of 90% WP(C).No.15006 OF 2011 8 was not on account of Ext.P4 audit objections but for reasons that remains unexplained even now.
12. I am, therefore, of the view that during the period after Ext.P3 and until the time the petitioner was paid 90% of the DCRG on 09.03.2010, the respondent is liable to pay interest, which, I am of the view, would be reasonable at 9% per annum, taking into account the rates of interest prevalent in the years 2004 and 2010.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition, commanding the respondent to pay interest @ 9% simple interest per annum for the period between 18.08.2009 and 09.03.2010 when 90% of the DCRG was paid to the petitioner; within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As regards the alleged delay in payment of the balance 10%, as I have already said above, I cannot find the same to WP(C).No.15006 OF 2011 9 be substantiated and therefore, repel the same.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/17.2.2021 WP(C).No.15006 OF 2011 10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED 18.1.2009 TO AEO TO DISBURSE 90% OF HIS DCRT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT'S REPY DATED 29.1.2010.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT DATED 18.8.2009.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT'S LETTER DATED 21.1.2010 WITH A COPY OF AUDIT OBJECTION. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S EXPLANATION DATED 27.2.2010 TO EXT.P4.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT'S LETTER DATED 6.5.2010 FOR ANSWERING FURTHER OBJECTION. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT'S INTIMATION DATED 15.9.2010 REMOVING THE AUDIT OBJECTION FOR THE PERIOD FROM 2.6.2008 TO 31.3.2009 AND SEEKING EXPLANATION IN REGARD TO OBJECTION FOR SUBSEQUENT PERIODS. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT'S ORDER DATED 18.1.2011 SANCTIONING BALANCE DCRG.