IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 11580 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAVEENDRAN V.G. TECHNICIAN (RETIRED), DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN-22, RESIDING AT "DEVUS" UNIVERSITY P.O. THRIKKAKARA,ERNAKULAM DIST BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR SRI.R.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. DEPUTY REGISTRAR (FINANCE) COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. 3. FINANCE OFFICER, COCHIN UNVIERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI-22. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (HG) LOCAL FUND AUDIT, COCHIN UNVIERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY KOCHI-22 5. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM,SC,CUSAT,COCHIN FOR R1-4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.K.RAMESH FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.11580/2009-N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein was working as Technician in the Department of Electronics under the first respondent University. He retired from service on 31/07/2007. He was initially appointed as Technician Grade 'B' (Mechanical) on 10/05/1984. He was granted higher grade with effect from 10/05/1989 on completion of five years of service. This is evidenced by Ext.P1. Pursuant to the completion of five years of service in the latter grade, he was granted higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.1250-2230 as per Ext.P2 order dated 01/01/1994. Accordingly, the earlier order was cancelled. He was granted 15 years higher grade, as per Ext.P3 order dated 30/06/1999. It is also submitted that he was not granted cadre promotions and he has not been sanctioned any higher grade promotion after 2003. 2. After the retirement of the petitioner, audit objections were raised against quantification of his pensionary benefits. Ext.P4 is the resultant proceedings issued by the University in terms of the audit objection. Ext.P5 is a liability certificate issued to the petitioner. Going by these proceedings, it is evident that now what is sought to be recovered is alleged excess pay drawn by the petitioner, which is based on the audit W.P.(C). No.11580/2009 -:2:- objection. The petitioner has stated in paragraph (5) of the writ petition that the Syndicate of the first respondent University has resolved to release the withheld amount of D.C.R.G of all the employees who retired from the service of the University. Ext.P6 is the proceedings wherein the said decision of the Syndicate is reflected. The Syndicate is of the view that the higher grade granted to the employees upto 27/12/2003 was according to the decision of the Syndicate. They also referred to two judgments of this Court, to the effect that the Syndicate has every right to grant such benefits to its employees. Thereafter, the University passed Ext.P7 order by which the withheld portion of the D.C.R.G was released. What remains is the sanction of the amount in terms of the fixation of pay from time to time. 3. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, a statement has been filed. In paragraph (3) of the statement, it is stated that since the University had granted higher grade to its employees based on their service seniority, the matter was taken by the University before the Audit Department and a detailed explanation was submitted justifying the implementation of the Scheme. It is also stated that the University has taken up the matter before the Government requesting to waive the audit objections. The said communication is produced as Annexure-I. Annexure-III will show that the University had taken efforts to get the objections cleared. W.P.(C). No.11580/2009 -:3:- 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P.(C).No.5908/2005, wherein a similar issue was considered. This Court, after referring to various aspects, held in paragraph (5) thus:- “From the above facts, it is clear that petitioner was given the benefits based on a Syndicate decision as evidenced by Ext.P1 dated 13/05/2002. The Syndicate is the competent authority as empowered under the Statute and its decision is well within its jurisdiction. As per the counter affidavit also, the University took up the matter with the Government to waive the Audit Objection. The only reason for issuing Ext.P6 is based on an audit objection and the Government did not agree with the view of the Syndicate. But the fact remains that the decision in Ext.P1 is not yet revoked or cancelled by any subsequent decision of the Syndicate. No materials whatsoever is also placed cancelling such decision. So long as Ext.P1 stands and payment having been effected based on the Syndicate decision, the question arises as to how any recovery could be made and any liability could be fastened based on a mere audit objection.” W.P.(C). No.11580/2009 -:4:- 5. This Court was therefore, of the view that the competent authority is Syndicate which is empowered to take a decision on the matter and unless that is replaced by a fresh decision, the liability cannot be fastened after retirement based on a mere audit objection. The decision of the Division Bench in Sreedharan v.Union of India [2002 (1) KLT 444] was also relied upon. I respectfully, agree with the same. 6. In the light of the above, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition. Herein, going by Ext.P6, the Syndicate has resolved that the Higher Grades granted to the employees upto 27/12/2003 was according to the decision of the Syndicate and that was justified. In that view of the matter, the objection raised by audit cannot be sustained. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. Ext.P4 is quashed. There will be a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to restore the pay of the petitioner as fixed in Ext.P3 and to disburse the consequential pensionary benefits after taking into consideration the subsequent pay fixations from time to time. The monetary benefits due will be disbursed within a period of three months. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms