Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs P .I. Sunil on 8 November, 2013
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/16TH SRAVANA, 1936
WA.No. 977 of 2014 () IN WP(C).343/2010
-----------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 343/2010 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 08-11-2013
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT IN WP(C):
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HIGHER EDUCATION (G) DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAFI
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER IN THE WP(C):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
P .I. SUNIL
FORMERLY LECTURER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
MAR ATHANASIUS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOTHAMANGALAM
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 1096, GREY OWAL ROAD
ALPHA RETTA, G.A.30022, U.S.A.
REPRESENTED BY MARKOSE, CHALAKATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE
PAZHAMTHOTTAM, KUMARAPURAM, ERNAKULAM
PIN 683565.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-08-2014, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.
-----------------------------------
W.A.No.977 of 2014
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2014
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the respondents in W.P(C). 343/10, which was filed by the first respondent herein, seeking to quash Exts.P12 and P13 and for a declaration that his liability was only to pay amounts in terms of Ext.P3 Government Order and Ext.P4 bond. He also sought for a direction to the respondents to refund `5.63 lakhs out of `8.31 lakhs remitted by him by Ext.P4.
2.The facts in the writ petition show that the first respondent was a Lecturer in the MA College of Engineering, Kothamangalam. He was selected for quality improvement programme to undergo M.Tech course in the IIT, Kanpur. He had executed Ext.P4 bond in accordance with Ext.P3 order binding himself to pay to the State Government the amounts mentioned therein. He underwent the course during the period from 25.7.1996 to 23.1.1998 and re-joined duty. He WA.977/14 2 worked there from 23.1.98 till 23.5.1999. Thereafter, he was sanctioned leave without allowance for the period from 26.3.1998 to 25.3.2004 subject to Ext.P6 bank guarantee. The leave was extended till 26.3.2009 when he was relieved from service on resignation. On resignation, his liability to the appellants were quantified and accordingly, he remitted `2.65 lakhs. However, by Ext.P13, the liability was quantified was fixed at `8.31 lakhs, taking the liability as mentioned in Ext.P16 Government Order dated 21.5.2009. Though the first respondent remitted the entire amount under protest, he claimed refund by filing the writ petition. By the judgment under appeal, learned single Judge allowed his claim for refund of Rs.5.63 lakhs. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.
3.The admitted factual position is that if Ext.P16 Government Order relied on by the appellants is inapplicable to the case of the first respondent, he will be entitled to be refunded Rs.5.63 lakhs as ordered by the learned single Judge. Therefore, the WA.977/14 3 only question to be examined is whether Ext.P16 order has any application to the facts of this case.
4.The concluding paragraph of Ext.P16 reads thus:
"As far as the leave applications pending consideration before the Government, they shall be allowed only after ensuring that the guidelines and norms laid down above are complied with. All the existing applications pending to be considered by the Government will be allowed in accordance with the guidelines prescribed as above."
Reading of the above paragraph itself shows that the order can apply only to those cases where the application for leave was pending as on the date of the order, viz., 21.5.2009.
5.From the facts narrated above, it is obvious that Ext.P16 order can have no application to the case of the first respondent. If that be so, the conclusion of the learned single Judge that the first respondent was entitled to be refunded `5.63 lakhs is perfectly WA.977/14 4 justified. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Writ appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, Judge.
kkb.
/True copy/ PS to Judge