Kerala High Court
Bhaskaran S vs State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2020
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
WP(C).No.17053 OF 2017(F)
PETITIONER:
BHASKARAN S., AGED 61, S/O.N.SUBBAYYA,
RESIDING AT B-25, SANTHINIKETHAN APARTMENTS,
ANNA NAGAR, MADHURAI, TAMIL NADU-625 020.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.
2 THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY
FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.
3 THE JOINT DIRECTOR
LOCAL FUND AUDIT, OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKARA, THRISSUR
- 680 001
4 THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VELLANIKARA,
THRISSUR - 680 001.
SRI.ROBSON PAUL, SC.
SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN - SR.GP
SRI.SURESH BABU, SPL.GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.17053 OF 2017(F)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of December 2020 The petitioner is stated to have retired, on attaining the age of superannuation, as a Professor from the services of the Kerala Agricultural University (for short, 'the University') and he has approached this Court with an innocuous prayer that the respondents be directed to settle his terminal benefits, adverting to Ext.P8 order of the University, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. Sri.Robson Paul, the learned standing counsel for the University, on the other hand, does not contest the petitioner's claim but says that the University is unable to issue proceedings with respect to the retiral benefits of the petitioner,since the Kerala State Audit Department has raised two objections against past services of the petitioner, namely that: (a) the Leave Without Allowance (LWA) granted to him from 26.09.1995 to 06.01.1997 was incorrect, since it was not supported by medical certificates; and (b) that the University was in error in having allowed the petitioner to rejoin on 08.02.2001, because he had earlier resigned from their services. The University, therefore, says that they are unable to WP(C).No.17053 OF 2017(F) 3 move forward on account of the afore audit objections raised.
3. Sri.Suresh Babu, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State of Kerala and its functionaries, submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on record, wherein, the afore objections have been specifically explained and that the Kerala State Audit Department was under duty, as the statutory Auditor, to point out the same. The learned Special Government Pleader, therefore, submitted that on account of the unlawful actions of the University, the petitioner cannot be now granted the benefits as has been prayed for by him.
4. I have examined the pleadings on record and have also gone through the materials available.
5. The genesis of the controversy is when the petitioner applied leave for 120 days from 29.05.1995 to 25.09.1995, which was granted by the dean of the Department. Thereafter, he sought for leave without allowance from 26.09.1995 to 06.01.1997, through various applications, and rejoined duty on 07.01.1997. Subsequently, he requested for permission to be deployed on deputation to join the National Institute of Agricultural Marketing (NIAM) from 01.10.1997 or in the alternative to resign; and the Vice Chancellor of the WP(C).No.17053 OF 2017(F) 4 University recommended the latter.
6. At this point, I must record that, with respect to the petitioner's application for leave without allowance, there was an enquiry initiated against him on the basis of an anonymous letter that he was working in a private company, by name Max Worth Orchards; but when the Vice Chancellor recommended his resignation, the said enquiry was stopped and the petitioner was relieved from the University on 30.09.2000.
7. However, the Executive Committee of the University, in its 357th meeting on 22.01.2001, allowed the petitioner to rejoin on condition that the afore enquiry be reopened; consequent to which, the petitioner rejoined on 09.02.2001 and new Memo of Charges was served on him with respect to the earlier allegation that he was working unauthorisedly at Max Worth Orchards.
8. Pertinently, the enquiry report was thereafter settled by the Enquiry Officer, finding that the petitioner had not worked at Max Worth Orchards but that he had taken up employment with the NIAM without permission, leading to the recommendation of the penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect to be imposed upon him. This recommendation was accepted and the said penalty was WP(C).No.17053 OF 2017(F) 5 imposed on the petitioner, as per the decision of the 373 rd meeting of the Executive Committee of the University.
9. The Executive Committee of the University, thereupon, met on 24.03.2004 and resolved to treat the period from 26.09.1995 to 06.01.1997 as being medical leave and the period the petitioner worked in NIAM as eligible leave. This was followed by University Order, dated 06.06.2003.
10. Later, in the 444th meeting of the Executive Committee of the University, it was decided to treat the period from 01.10.1997 to 08.02.2001 as deputation, if the pension contribution was given by the NIAM. The 450 th meeting of the Executive Committee ratified this and treated the period from 01.10.1997 to 08.02.2001 as being deputation and the records show that the pension contribution from the NIAM was also obtained.
11. It is in the background of the afore factual circumstances that the audit objections now raised by the Kerala Audit Department will have to be viewed.
12. As I have already said above, the first audit objection is that the period from 26.09.1995 to 06.01.1997 was granted incorrectly to the petitioner as leave without allowance because it was not supported by medical certificates. However, WP(C).No.17053 OF 2017(F) 6 the fact remains that the University themselves concede that the petitioner has now given the requisite medical certificates in support of this period.
13. The second objection raised by the Audit is that the University was wrong in allowing the petitioner to rejoin, since his resignation was recommended by the Vice Chancellor and he had so resigned.
14. I am afraid that this objection is incompetent because the decision to allow the petitioner to rejoin duties was taken by the University at its highest level and obviously, therefore, the Kerala State Audit cannot make an opinion on the same, it being a matter within the jurisdiction of the University at the appropriate time. Even if the University was in error in having allowed the petitioner to rejoin, the State Audit Department cannot object to the same for the purpose of detaining his terminal benefits, because such a decision had been taken, as I have already said above, by the University and it was within their competence.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the University to issue appropriate proceedings with respect to the terminal benefits of the petitioner de hors the objections aforementioned raised by the Kerala Audit WP(C).No.17053 OF 2017(F) 7 Department and forward it to the first respondent - State of Kerala, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
It is needless to say that once the papers reach the competent Authority of the first respondent in terms of the afore directions, the said Authority will ensure that the papers are properly processed, thus leading to the disbursement of the terminal benefits of the petitioner as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months thereafter.
At this time, Sri.Robson Paul, the learned standing counsel for the University, submitted that a part payment has already been made to the petitioner in terms of the interim directions of this Court. It is needless to say that the pension papers to be submitted in terms of the afore directions will also indicate this.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Stu JUDGE
WP(C).No.17053 OF 2017(F)
8
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY DATED 28.5.2015 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY DATED 14.7.2015 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY NIAM, JAIPUR DATED 5.4.99 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT DATED 1.12.2014 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER UNIVERSITY DATED 25.5.2016 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY DATED 26.7.2016 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 387TH MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY DATED 24.3.2004 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY DATED 4.8.08 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.GA.L3/41897/97 DATED 06.06.2003 EXHIBIT R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE AUDIT DEPARTMENT