IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 88 of 2003(I) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- N.K. VISWANATHAN, S/O. A.M.POKKAYI, AGED 61 YEARS, KELOTH KANDIYIL HOUSE, P.O.KURIKKILAD, VADAKARA, SUB ENGINEER KSEB (RETIRED) BY ADV. MR.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, VATAKARA. 2. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, (PENSION AUDIT) VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE FINANCIAL ADVISE & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M.), VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM R1 TO R5 BY ADV. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 88/2003-I ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.108/2003 IN O.P. NO. 88/2003 DISMISSED 02/06/2009. SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.EB1/PENSION/NKV/97 DATED 20/03/97 FROM 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04/06/97. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ABI/MONTHLY A/Cs/2000-2001/71 DATED 05/10/2000 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH THE MASA FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01/08/1990 TO 09/08/1990. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P4 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 20055/2002 DATED 19/07/2002. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16/10/2002 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 11/11/2002. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.PA V/PPO.20025 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/11/2002. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 16/10/1991. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 27/02/1992. EXT.R1(c): COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 07/11/1995. EXT.R1(d): COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 01/06/1996. EXT.R1(e): COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 22/06/1996. EXT.R1(f): COPY OF THE MASA SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1(g): COPY OF THE NON LIABILITY CERTIFICTE DATED 28/09/2002 ISSUED BY THE ASST. ENGINEER, KSEB, VADAKARA. EXT.R1(h): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT, DATED 16/09/2003. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ O.P. NO. 88 OF 2003 (I) ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired as Sub Engineer from the service of the respondent on 30/6/96. By Ext.P1, the 1st respondent forwarded the petitioner's pension papers to the 2nd respondent indicating a liability of Rs.4,06,932/-. It is also stated that thereafter he issued Ext.P2, sanctioning the minimum pension. It is stated that still later, on 5/10/2000, he was issued Ext.P3 requesting him to submit the Material at Site Account for the period 1/8/90 to 9/8/90 failing which, pension papers/NLC/NC shall be finalised on the basis of the existing liability of Rs.4,06,932/-. Petitioner claims to have forwarded the Material at Site Account under cover of Ext.P4. Since he was not released the terminal benefits including DCRG, he approached this Court by filing OP No.20055/02. That OP was disposed of at the admission stage itself by Ext.P6 judgment directing that the liability, if any, of the petitioner be fixed within 3 months and leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge any such fixation of liability on all grounds available. In compliance with the judgment, he was issued Ext.P7 notice, to which Ext.P8 explanation was given. Thereafter the OP No.88/03 :2 : Board issued Ext.P9 indicating the net liability of the petitioner to be Rs.4,27,055/- to be recovered from the arrears of pension. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. The contention raised by the petitioner is that he having retired on 30/6/96, fixation of his liability was only by Ext.P9 dated 19.11.2002. It is stated that this is beyond the permissible period of three years as provided in Note 3 to Rule 3 Part III of KSR. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. From the counter affidavit, it would appear that the case of the respondents is that the liability of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.4,06,932/- long before the petitioner's retirement and they are referring to Exts.R1(a) to R1(e) in support of this contention. Petitioner denies of having received the aforesaid notices and on that basis, it is contended that liability was fixed only by Ext.P9. 3. Having considered the submissions made, I am inclined to accept the case canvassed by the Board. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner has not received Exts.R1(a) or R1(b) relied on by the Board, the petitioner cannot dispute of having received Ext.R1(c) dated 7/11/95 in response to which he has given a letter dated 23/11/95 referred to as reference No.2 in Ext.R1(d). Ext.R1 (c) and R1(d) clearly discloses that after notice to the petitioner, OP No.88/03 :3 : liability has been quantified during 1995 itself at Rs.4,06,932/-. It is also stated in Ext.R1(d) that the said amount has been debited in the personal account of the petitioner as liability. Therefore, it is evident that long before the petitioner's retirement, his liability was quantified. 4. True Ext.P3 issued on 5/10/2000 called upon the petitioner to produce the Material at Site Account. However, a reading of Ext.P3 itself show that if he fails to produce the same, the pension papers/NLC/LC shall be finalised on the basis of the existing liability of Rs.4,06,932/-. This obviously means that as at the time when Ext.P3 was issued, petitioner already had an existing liability. Therefore, Ext.P3 cannot be taken as a fresh step for initiating proceedings for quantification of the liability. If that be so, there is absolutely no merit in the case of the petitioner that the liability was fixed for the first time only by Ext.P9 issued on 19/11/2002. I am not inclined to interfere. Original petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp