IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 6108 of 2008(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.P.RAJENDRAN NAIR, TC 14/1548(2) 'SARANYA', FOREST OFFICE LANE, VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (RTD) STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGE BY ADV. SMT.P.V.ASHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR, STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. AUDIT OFFICER, LOCAL FUND AUDIT STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.NANDAKUMAR R3 & R4 BY ADV.MR.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,SC,STATE LANG.INS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.6108/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17.11.04. P2:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT RULES. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 3.8.06. P3(a):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BERORE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 9.1.07. P3(b):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 10.9.07. P4:- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 26.2.07. P5:- COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT DTD. 20.4.07. P6:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 20.4.07. P7:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 9.7.07. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28.6.07. P9:- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF ACCADEMIC COMMITTEE OF S.I.L. DTD. 22.7.02. P10:- COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 29.10.01. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 6108 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Smt.P.V.Asha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. P.Nandakumar the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. P.K.Vijayamohanan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. 2. The petitioner retired from service on 31.7.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation while he was working as Assistant Director in the Kerala State Institute of Languages. After retirement, by Ext.P1 order dated 17.11.2004, payment of provisional pension was sanctioned to him. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the delay in payment of terminal benefits. 3. The petitioner submits that as provisional pension alone was sanctioned he had submitted Exts.P3 representation before the first respondent and Ext.P3(a) representation before the second respondent seeking payment of pensionary benefits. In reply to Ex.P3(a) letter, the second respondent informed the petitioner that the objections pointed out by the Audit Officer in his letter dated 13.10.2005 are being enquired into and that payment of pensionary benefits will be made after the audit WPC No.6108/08 2 objections are resolved and the petitioner’s liabilities are determined. The pleadings disclose that by Exts.P5 and P6, payment of pensionary benefits including gratuity was sanctioned to the petitioner on 20.4.2007. The only item of liability fixed in the said proceedings is the sum of Rs.220/-, said to be the excess salary drawn by the petitioner. Ext.P7 produced along with the writ petition discloses that the said amount of Rs.220/- was remitted with the Kerala State Institute of Languages on 9.7.2007. 4. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is contended that a sum of Rs.1,39,396/- is outstanding as the petitioner's liability and that only after the said liability is settled, pensionary benefits can be disbursed to him. It is stated that when the petitioner was working as the Editor of Vijnana Kairali, a magazine published by the Kerala State Institute of Languages, the free postage facility was not renewed as a result of which the Kerala State Institute of Languages suffered loss to the tune of Rs.90,622/-. It is stated that the audit party has recommended recovery of the said amount from the petitioner who according to the third respondent is the person responsible for the said loss. The third respondent has further stated that by causing excess copies of the Vijnana Kairali to be printed during the period from April 2003 to March 2004, the petitioner had caused loss to the tune of Rs.42,227/- to the State Institute of Languages and that as the petitioner is the person responsible for the WPC No.6108/08 3 same, the said amount is liable to be recovered from the petitioner. The third respondent has also stated that the sum of Rs.2,547/- consisting of the travelling allowance advance drawn by the petitioner and pay fixation liability is also due from him. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit wherein it is stated that petitioner was appointed as Editor of the Vijnana Kairali only on 22.7.2002 and that postal concession certificate issued to the Vijnana Kairali magazine was lost during the term of his predecessor namely Sri.N.Jayakrishnan in November 2000. It is also stated that Sri.N.Jayakrishnan is in service even today. As regards the printing of excess copies of Vijnana Kairali, the petitioner has stated that the decision on the number of copies to be printed was taken by the Governing Body of the Kerala State Institute of Languages and therefore the petitioner cannot be held liable for the same. The petitioner has also disputed his liability to refund the sum of Rs.2,547/- referred to in para 6 of the counter affidavit. 5. The fact that the petitioner was appointed as the Editor of Vijnana Kairali only in the meeting held by the Governing Body on 22.7.2002 is not in dispute. The fact that the postal concession certificate issued to the Vijnana Kairali was lost in November 2000 when Sri. N.Jayakrishnan, who is still in service in the State Institute of Languages was the Editor of the said magazine is also not disputed. The petitioner has stated that after he was appointed as Editor, on noticing that the postal concession certificate WPC No.6108/08 4 has been lost, urgent steps were taken to revive the postal concession and that the postal concession was restored in September 2004. The petitioner has also stated that the then Director of Kerala State Institute of Languages had in his letter No.D-SIL/2001 dated 12.9.2001 informed the Government about the loss of the postal concession certificate as early as in September 2001 and that the Government had sent Ext.P10 reply to the then Director. From the materials placed on record it is evident that the petitioner was appointed as Editor only in 22.7.2002 and that the postal concession certificate was lost two years prior to his appointment as Editor. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the loss of the postal concession certificate and the consequences flowing there from. The stand taken by the third respondent in para 5 of the counter affidavit and by the audit party that the petitioner is the person responsible for the same is in my opinion untenable. 6. As regards the loss of Rs.42,227/- said to have been caused due to printing of excess copies of Vijnana Kairali during the financial year 2003-04, the petitioner has in categorical terms averred that the decision regarding the number of copies to be printed was taken by the Governing Body and not by him as the Editor. The third respondent has not denied the said averment or produced any material to show that the decision to increase the number of copies was a decision taken by the petitioner and WPC No.6108/08 5 the petitioner alone and not by the governing body. In the absence of any material to establish that it was the petitioner who decided upon the number of copies to be printed, I am persuaded to hold that the petitioner cannot be held liable for the loss caused to the Kerala State Institute of Languages due to the printing of excess copies of Vijnana Kairali during the financial year 2003-2004. 7. I shall now deal with the last item of liability of Rs.2,547/-, which the third respondent claims is due from the petitioner towards settlement of travelling allowance advance and towards repayment of excess pay. Though the petitioner disputes his liability to pay back the said amount, during the course of arguments Smt.P.V.Asha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, very fairly conceded that the petitioner is willing to forgo the said amount from the DCRG sanctioned and payable to him. 8. In the light of the above findings, I hold that for no justifiable reason, payment of DCRG and other terminal benefits due to the petitioner was withheld. Necessarily therefore, as held by the Apex Court in Dua vs. State of Haryana (2008 (3) KLT 58) the petitioner is entitled to be compensated by awarding of interest. I accordingly allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to disburse terminal benefits to the petitioner within one month from today after deducting the sum of Rs.2,547/-. The terminal benefits shall be WPC No.6108/08 6 disbursed to the petitioner together with interest on the DCRG at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 1.9.2004 onwards. Payment as directed above shall be made within two months from today. Payment of arrears of pension shall also be made within two months from today. It will be open to the Kerala State Institute of Languages/Government to recover the amount paid by way of interest from the officers responsible for the delayed disbursement of terminal benefits to the petitioner. If the pensionary benefits have been revised, the petitioner shall be given the said benefit and payment of arrears, if any as a consequence of revision of pension, shall be disbursed to the petitioner expeditiously. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps