Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The learned Single Judge took the view that the Kerala Lok Ayukta could not have exercised any authority to sanction or non-sanction of pensionary benefits, which cannot be classified as maladministration within the meaning of the Lok Ayukta Act. The learned Single Judge also noticed that the complainant took voluntary retirement on 13.01.2000 whereas the complaint was filed before Lok Ayukta in the year 2008. The learned Single Judge held that Lok Ayukta had neither any adjudicatory power nor power to enforce the recommendation made, whereas Lok Ayukta had issued a direction which was unsustainable. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding this writ appeal are :

6. Learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that even the act of inordinate delay by the State cannot be termed as maladministration within the meaning of Lok Ayukta Act. Hence present was not a case where the Lok Ayukta have issued any directions. The only jurisdiction which the Lok Ayukta has, as mere investigator, and could have sent a recommendation. The learned Single Judge has referred to various authorities in support of the above conclusion. The learned Single Judge has also noted that though the complainant has retired voluntarily in the year 2000, he filed a complaint only in 2008.

(i) such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; or
(ii) there has been willful negligence or undue delay in taking such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action involves undue delay."

8. The learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on two judgments reported in State of Kerala v. Bernad [2002 (3) KLT 254] and State of Kerala v. John Joseph [2011(3) KLT 150]. The Division Bench in the aforesaid two cases had occasion to consider the concept of maladministration as defined in Lok Ayukta Act, 1999.

"(d) Action taken in respect of appointment, removal, pay, discipline, superannuation or other matters relating to conditions of service of public servants but, not including actions relating to claims for pension, gratuity, provident fund or to any claims which arises on retirement, removal or termination of service."

A perusal of Clause (d) of the Second Schedule indicates that claims for pension, gratuity, provident fund or to any claims which arises on retirement, removal or termination of service are not to be prohibited from investigation as contemplated under Section 8(1) read with Second Schedule. Thus Statute specifically exclude claim for pension, gratuity, Provident Fund etc from prohibition as provided in Section 8. This clearly indicates that claims for pension, gratuity, provident fund are not prohibited from investigation by the Lok Ayukta, rather the statutory scheme indicates that such claim can be investigated by the Lok Ayukta as delineated by the Second Schedule read with Section 8. As noticed above, the definition of maladministration includes any action taken if such action is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory. Further, if there is any undue delay in taking such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action, can also be covered by maladministration.