Kerala High Court
The Director Of Collegiate Education vs Somarajan P.K on 11 October, 2012
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur, A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2013/10TH SRAVANA, 1935
WA.No. 946 of 2013 () IN WP(C).1466/2007
------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1466/2007 DATED 11-10-2012
APPELLANTS/RESPONDNETS 1 TO 4 IN WPC:
-------------------------------------------------
1. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
KOLLAM.
3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (KERALA)
TIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS
RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS IN WPC:
-------------------------------------------
SOMARAJAN P.K.
LECTURER IN SANSKRIT (SENIOR SCALE) DEPARTMENT
OF SANSKRIT S.N. COLLEGE
SIVAGIRI, VARKALA.
BY SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-
2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J.
&
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Writ Appeal No.946 of 2013
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2013
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur,CJ Heard learned Government Pleader as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The entire issue revolves around one controversy when actually the contributions were made by the writ petitioner- respondent towards Provident Fund as P.D.teacher in Government service prior to securing a job as a lecturer in an aided college becomes payable. So far as the contributions made by the respondent-teacher, there is no dispute that till 1996 when he resigned from the post of P.D.teacher in Government service to join as lecturer in an aided college he was contributing towards Provident Fund.
3. The entire correspondence right from Ext.P1 indicates that in response to letter from AEO, Adoor dated 29.12.2001, a Writ Appeal No.946 of 2013 2 letter from the Accounts-General (A&E), Kerala came to be addressed to the Head Master in December 2002. In this letter though the reference was made to quitting of the teacher post by the respondent-writ petitioner on 02.12.1996, the letter addressed to the department regarding closure of the earlier PF A/c as a PD teacher was only in the year 2001.
4.Though the writ petitioner-respondent categorically contends that an averment to the effect that in 1996 itself he made representation to the concerned Principal of College where he was a lecturer and also to the Headmaster of the school where he was earlier working, no material is produced and no proceeding whatsoever came to be initiated till 2001. There is nothing on record when exactly this writ petitioner sought closure of the earlier Provident Fund account by transferring amount from earlier account to the new account commenced by him as a lecturer in an aided college. The correspondence indicates, the entire exercise came to be done only from December 2001 onwards. In order to gain the benefit of interest on the contributions made by him right from 1996 till the amount came to be credited in 2002, the burden is on the writ Writ Appeal No.946 of 2013 3 petitioner to indicate when exactly he asked for closure of the account, whether immediately after resigning his job in December 1996 or later. Even otherwise, from the records we understand, especially Ext.P4, that the account numbers furnished by the writ petitioner himself were wrong, therefore, there was some confusion in 2002 while transfering the earlier contributions to the new account. But the controversy is not pertaining to this aspect; but it is with regard to the interest payable as claimed by the petitioner from 1996 till the amount came to be credited in 2002, that is about 18000 and odd.
5. In the absence of any correspondence or application made by the writ petitioner-claimant, one has to go by the rules which were applicable at the relevant point of time. General Provident Fund(Kerala) Rules provides how amounts have to be calculated and how interest is to be computed on the contributions of the Provident Fund applicants. So far as payment of interest is concerned, Rule 15(4) as it stood at the time of the resignation submitted by the claimant in 1996., it reads as under:-
"15(4): In addition to any amount to be paid under rules on final withdrawal, interest thereon up to the end of the month Writ Appeal No.946 of 2013 4 preceding that in which the payment is made or up to the end of the sixth month after the month in which such amount became payable, whichever of these periods be less, shall be payable to the person to whom such amount is to be paid:
Provided that where the Account Officer has intimated to that person (or his agent) a date on which he is prepared to make payment, interest shall be payable only up to the end of the month preceding the date so intimated."
6. If the amount contributed by him in earlier P.F.Account as a P.D teacher was payable to him, it has to be paid in accordance with the above rule. Therefore, in the absence of bringing on record any materials that as early as 1996 or at least in 1997 within the time provided he had made such application for transfer of contributions to the new account, the interest payable on his contributions have to be computed as stated above. So far as factual situation, the interest is credited up to November 1997 which is beyond the period of entitlement.
7. So far as 44071 contributions available to the writ petitioner-claimant, as a lecturer in aided college, paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent clearly indicates how it was wrongly credited to different account and later on rectified the same and interest also is paid. For the purpose of Writ Appeal No.946 of 2013 5 better understanding, paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit is reproduced hereunder:-
"4. As submitted earlier, an amount of Rs.18,979/- being the GPF transfer amount was wrongly credited to the Petitioner's KPCSPF Account No.14181 on December 2002 by Accountant General. Similarly the Principal of S.N.College, Nattika committed the very same mistke by wrongly crediting an amount of Rs.44,071/- into the vey same wrong account. Hence it can be seen that an amount of Rs.18,979/- which was pending in the earlier GPF Account of the petitioner was wrongly credited by Accountant General on December 2002 and another amount of Rs.44,071/- was also credited subsequently into wrong KPCSPF account number by the Principal. When these mistakes were noticed remedial action was taken by the 1st respondent. Thus the PF amount Rs.44071/- due to the petitioner for the period from 2/2000 to 9/01 and the transfer credited GPF amount due to the petitioner which is credited in the KPCSPF account number on 12/2002 as per Accountant General's letter No.PF-16/1/CL-10/62 dated 18.08.2003 which was wrongly credited in KPCSPF Account No.14081 is corrected and entered into his actual KPCSPF Account No.14080 and interest also was calculated for the balance PF amount of the petitioner for the period from Writ Appeal No.946 of 2013 6 2/99 to 7/2004. Since the Accountant General has credited the GPF transfer amount of the petitioner from 12/02, interest is calculated only form 12/02 onwards. Accountant General in his letter No.PF16/CL/2011-12/16659/1730 dated 07.09.2011 has not mentioned the petitioner's actual GPF balance amount and the date up to which the interest is calculated for. Hence it can be clearly seen that the respondents has taken all earnest effort to seen that PF amount due to the petitioner from 2/99 to 7/04 and the GPF transfer credited amount of the petitioner by Accountant General on 12/02 has been credited to correct account No.14080 along with statutory interest."
In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion, the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the relief as sought by the writ petitioner. Therefore appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
sj 2/8