IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 OP.No. 11465 of 2001(M) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ISAC K.VARKEY, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.K.I. VARKEY, NEERAMPUZHA, VAZHAKULAM P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.P.K.IBRAHIM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), ERNAKULAM. 5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KALLOORKKAD. R1 TO R5 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N. SUDHA DEVI. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 11465/2001-M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.S.C.(1)/39480/96/D.P.I. DATED 11/06/96 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.PA4/41358/2000/DPI DATED 26/06/2000 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10/07/2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 22394/2000 DATED 07/08/2000 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.C.NO.1148/2000 DATED 07/12/2000 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.50307/C2/2000/G.EDN. DATED 04/12/2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D3-19629/2000 DATED 22/01/2001 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 11465 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a retired Assistant Educational Officer. He retired from service on 31-3-1997. His retirement benefits were withheld on the ground of certain audit objections. The audit objections related to a report of the petitioner relating to staff strength of an aided school under him on the basis of which staff strength was fixed in excess of the strength allowable. Consequent payment of salary to the junior most teacher was sought to be recovered from his retirement benefits. Apart from that, there were some minor items of liabilities also. The petitioner contended that the audit objection cannot be relied upon since the petitioner only complied with Ext. P2 circular of the Director of Public Instruction. The petitioner earlier approached this Court and by Ext. P5, the Government was directed to consider the petitioner's case. Pursuant thereto, the Government passed Ext. P7 order by which the contentions of the petitioner were accepted and it was held that the audit objections do not stand and the Government decided that the petitioner can claim full retirement benefits. Pursuant thereto, retirement benefits were disbursed to the petitioner. The petitioner now claims interest for the delayed payment of the retirement benefits due to the petitioner. According to the petitioner insofar as the delay was not on account of the fault of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to interest for the period of delay. 2. The learned Government Pleader opposes the prayer. According to her, the delay occurred not because of any culpable act on the part of the respondents, but in view of the peculiar circumstances available in the case. She also submits that in view of the decision of this Court in Vijayakumaran Nair v. State Bank of Travancore, 2005(1) KLT 953, no writ petition would lie for claiming -: 2 :- interest alone. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. From a reading of the original petition and the documents relating to the audit objection, I am satisfied that there was a genuine reason for withholding the retirement benefits. There was no culpable delay on the part of the respondents in the matter. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner to award interest. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/