IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 OP.No. 23382 of 2000(H) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ A.RAMACHANDRAN, LINEMAN GRADE I (RETD.) MULAMOOTTIL THEKKETHIL, KOTTAMURY P.O., CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2) CHIEF ENGINEER, (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3) EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY DIVISION, CHANGANACHERRY. 4) ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, E.M.S. K.S.E.B, THENGANA. 5) ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELCTRICITY SECTION, THRIKKODITHANAM. 6) CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7) THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, E.A.O.SECTION, OFFICE OF THE F.A. & C.A.O, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R7 BY SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SC FOR K.S.E.B. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB SRI.R.K.VENU NAYAR, SC, KSEB GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.REKHA C. NAIR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 23382 of 2000(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE ELECTRICITY BOARD. P2 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.7.99 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.7 P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL FILED BY THE PETITIONR BEFORE THE TH RESPONDENT. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P5 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ORDER DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.11.97 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P7 : COPY OF THE NIGHT DUTY STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER PREPARED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P8 : COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 13.8.98 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RRESPONDENT. P9 : COPY OF THE MONTHLY INCENTIVE ALLOWANCE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER, PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 26.9.98. P10 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.11.98 ALONG WITH THE BILLS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 10/92 TO 4/98, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT. P11 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.5.99 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P12 : COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 2.7.99 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P13 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P14 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.8.99 ISSUED BY THE 2N RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P15 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.9.99 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P16 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 2.12.99 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P17 : COPY OF THE FORM NO.56(A) KFC DATED 30.1.99 FORWARDED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXT.P.16. OP.No. 23382 of 2000(H) :2: P18 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.12.99 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR ELECTRICITY. P19 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.2.2000 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P20 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.10.98 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE. app/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.23382 of 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. The petitioner was working as lineman - Gr.II under the first respondent Board. He retired from service with effect from 30.4.1998. The dispute pertains to non- settlement of his claims for 'night allowance' and 'incentive for additional works'. After retirement, the petitioner submitted claims for the above said allowances pertaining to various periods, supported by working schedules. The 4th respondent forwarded necessary details and statements in support of the claims, for sanctioning such allowance and incentives. The 3rd respondent in turn had forwarded the claims supported by documents, to the second respondent. But through Ext.P11 letter issued by the second respondent, the 3rd respondent was requested to submit explanations regarding delay caused in preferring the claims and also to submit consolidated statements showing the details of service connections and street lights attended by the O.P. No.23382 of 2000 2 petitioner as additional work, for which incentive allowance is claimed. The 3rd respondent submitted Ext.P12 reply stating that the reason for delay has already been explained and the details regarding separate allocation of work for each lineman could not be furnished as those details are maintained only in their personal diary. But the 3rd respondent had forwarded details of the total number of consumers and strength of lineman in the section concerned, during the relevant period. The second respondent again sent Ext.P14 reply, further requesting for proper explanation for the delay caused in submitting the claims and also calling for production of records regarding allocation of work and for details of the quantum of work attended by each lineman. The 3rd respondent was specifically requested to explain as how he had ascertained correctness of the incentive bills prepared, without there being the records available. It is revealed from Ext.P15 letter that the 3rd respondent requested the lower authorities to furnish such records and details and the 5th O.P. No.23382 of 2000 3 respondent had informed that no records regarding allocation of work is available in that office, and conceded that the statements in support of the claims were submitted only in accordance with the claims made by the incumbent himself. It is also admitted that no records with respect to disbursal of the incentive allowance during the relevant period was available in the section. 2. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the second respondent had informed the 3rd respondent through Ext.P19, that the claims of the petitioner cannot be admitted due to lack of availability of relevant records, without conducting cross verification of such claims. Therefore, the 4th respondent was further requested to revise the incentive bills center vice, for considering its admissibility. The bills furnished were returned therewith to the Executive Engineer. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the Ext.P19 and also being aggrieved by further inaction on the part of the respondents in settling the claims. O.P. No.23382 of 2000 4 3. From the facts stated above it is evident that, the claims of the petitioner pertaining to the period from 10/1992 - 4/1998 were not settled during the appropriate time while he was in service. According to the petitioner such claims were not entertained by the official concerned during the relevant time because of non availability of funds for payment of such benefits. It is further evident that a portion of the claim pertaining to night duty allowance for the period from 7/1997 - 12/1997 had already been settled, which shows that first respondent Board was able to finalize those claims with or without verification of the relevant records. Now settlement of the remaining claims is being delayed indefinitely, for the reason that no proper verification could be done. In the normal functioning of various offices in the first respondent Board, it cannot be expected that they are not keeping any proper records with respect to additional duties and night duties assigned to individual lineman and such other staff. There will be records available such as Duty Book, Attendance Register, O.P. No.23382 of 2000 5 Complaint Register etc; in the Section office concerned. From the various replies submitted by the 3rd , 4th and 5th respondents it is not clear as to whether such records were not kept in the office during the relevant period, or whether it is a case of non-availability of such records. It cannot be expected that such records will be destroyed within a short period. On the other hand if it a failure to keep records, then those who are responsible for such failure shall be made accountable for such lapses. 4. It is pertinent to note that retirement of the petitioner was in the year 1998. The claims were put forth during that time itself. At least records for a reasonable period prior to the retirement will be available at the section office during that time. But the petitioners' claims were not seen settled inspite of the lapse of more than ten years, merely assigning reason of non-availability of records. His legitimate claims could not be refused, when the petitioner could not be held liable for non-availability of the records. At the same time it should be ensured that no O.P. No.23382 of 2000 6 bogus claims are settled, under the guise of the non- availability of records. 5. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Board submitted that the claims of the petitioner is lacking details such as the consumer number of the entire customers whom he had attended during the additional duty. But it is not revealed as to whether any particular procedure is prescribed or whether any proforma is prescribed for submitting such claims. It is also pertinent to note that the claims were not rejected for any such reasons. On the other hand such claims were only recommended for settlement. 6. However, considering the fact that the claims were neither rejected nor settled so far, I am not entering upon any findings as to its admissibility. As per Ext.P19 the 3rd respondent was requested to resubmit the bills supported by relevant details. Ext.P19 letter is dated 19.2.2000. In the counter affidavit it is stated that there is irresponsibility on the part of the Assistant Engineer in O.P. No.23382 of 2000 7 submitting certificates without verification. It is further made clear that Board has no intention to deny the legitimate claims of any employee, and the only fact required is that the genuineness of the claim should be established beyond doubt. But it is pertinent to note that after Ext.P19 letter nothing has been turned out, inspite of long delay. The petitioner could not be put to suffer because of the lapses on the part of the authorities of the Board concerned. At the same time the petitioner could not be permitted to have undue advantage out of the situation, if all the claims are not genuine. 7. Under the above mentioned circumstances I am of the opinion that the matter needs consideration and scrutiny at the level of a higher official, by conducing proper inspections and investigations at the offices concerned, in a time bound manner. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to finalize the claims submitted by the petitioner regarding payment of night duty allowance and allowance/incentive O.P. No.23382 of 2000 8 for additional duties, if necessary after verification of the relevant records kept in the offices concerned, and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. A final decision in this regard shall be taken and the amounts due to the petitioner with respect to the admissible claims shall be disbursed as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. app/-