IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 25167 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. V.S.SKANDAKUMAR, JOINT REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY P.O., THRISSUR. 2. K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN, SECTION OFFICER, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY P.O., THRISSUR. 3. P.SREEKUMAR, SECTION OFFICER, COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY P.O., VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 4. P.A.MARY, CLASS IV EMPLOYEES, K.A.U.HEADQUARTERS, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY VELLANIKKARA, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY P.O., THRISSUR. 5. K.GIRINDRA BABU, SECTION OFFICER, K.A.U.HEADQUARTERS, GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES' UNION, VELLANIKKARA, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MAIN CAMPUS, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR, PIN:680656. 2. COMPTROLLER, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MAIN CAMPUS, VELLANIKKARA, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY P.O. THRISSUR, PIN 680 656. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB, SC, KERALA AGRI UNIVER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 25167/2009. -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DT. 6-7-2009. EXT.P2 LETTER DT. 7-2-2009. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 25167 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 4th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are employees of the Kerala Agricultural University. They are aggrieved by the action of the University in deducting amounts from their salary towards subscription to provident fund and not remitting the same in the appropriate account. According to them, instead, the University is using the amounts deducted from the salary of the employees for other purposes. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to allow the applications for closure of P.F Account submitted by the 1st and 2nd petitioners and allow the applications for non-refundable advance submitted by the petitioners 3 to 5 and disburse the amounts due to them within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 not to misappropriate the amounts deducted by way of subscription to P.F every month from the emoluments of the petitioners and remit the same in the P.F Account within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. Iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to effect payment of sufficient amount of non-plan grant to the University within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. In respect of the first prayer, the University originally took the contention that they cannot disburse the provident fund amounts without obtaining sanction from the Government to meet the expenditure from the fixed deposit kept for this purpose. Therefore, I directed the Government to place on record their views in the matter. Pursuant thereto, the learned Government Pleader has filed a memo producing a letter received from the Secretary to the Government, W.P.C. No. 25167/2009 -: 2 :- which says that no sanction as stated by the University is necessary for disbursing the provident fund amounts due to the employees on closure of their provident fund account. Thereafter, the University prayed for extension of time to pay the amounts due to the petitioners . Now it is admitted that the amounts due to the 1st and 2nd petitioners on closure of their provident fund account have been paid and non-refundable advances requested for by the petitioners 3 to 5 have also been paid. The petitioners now submit that respondents 1 and 2 may be directed not to divert the provident fund contributions deducted from the salary of the employees for other purposes and to remit the same in the provident fund account promptly. 3. In the statement filed by the University on 24-9-2009, they have candidly admitted as follows in paragraph 3: “3. It is submitted that the remittance to GPF Account is not made regularly every month while transfer of a lump amount is made now and then depending upon the availability of funds. However, it is a fact that the transfer of funds to GPF A/c is not sufficient to meet the entire claim of employees. Unless sufficient fund is received from Government to disburse the gross salary of the employees regular remittance of GPF subscription will not be possible. At present an approximate amount of Rs. 10 crore is required for settlement of towards NRA/TA/Closure claims.” It does not need an intellectual discussion to conclude that the stand of the University is illegal. They are not dealing with the money of the University or that of the Government. They are dealing with the money belonging to the employees. On deduction of provident fund contributions from the salary of the employees, the University is bound to remit it promptly to the appropriate provident fund account W.P.C. No. 25167/2009 -: 3 :- of the petitioners. If that amount is used for other purposes, that is clearly illegal. As such, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to see that the provident fund contributions deducted from the salaries of employees of the University are credited to the provident fund account of the employees immediately after the deduction is made. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/