IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 25922 of 2003(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.S. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, RETD. OVERSEER, 110 KV SUB STATION, EDAPPON, RESIDING AT LATHA BHAVAN, EDAPPON, KALLIMEL P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DIST. T. VIJAYAMMA, W/O. LATE T.S. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, RESIDING AT LATHA BHAVAN, KALLUMEL P.O., MAVELIKARA. ADDL. 2ND PETITIONER IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 14.11.2005 IN I.A.NO. 15798/2005. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SRI.GEORGE T. THACHETT SMT.SABINA JAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, MAVELIKARA. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 25922/2003. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT. 10.6.2002. EXT.P2 SUBMISSION D5. 5.8.2003. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 25922 of 2003 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 29th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner who filed this writ petition, Sri. T.S. Radhakrishna Pillai, was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. He retired from service on 30-6-2003. Alleging non- disbursement of retirement benefits due to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to disburse the monthly pension arrears of monthly pension, Death Cum Retirement Gratuity and Commuted Value of pension, Welfare Fund Amount, along with 18% interest. i(A) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P1 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction refraining the respondents from realising any amounts covered by Ext. P1 either from the pension benefits or from the DCRG of the petitioner. iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to pay the provident fund amounts with interest.” The petitioner is no more. His wife has come on record as the legal heir to prosecute this writ petition. 2. From the pleadings and arguments, it appears that now the subsisting grievance of the petitioner is only in respect of recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,32,590/- as assessed by Ext. P1. 3. A statement has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been stated that the said amount of Rs. 1,32,590/- represents the monetary value of punishments imposed on the petitioner on 1.7.1987, 1.7.1988, 1.10.1992, 1.10.1993, 1.10.1994 and 1.10.1995 by barring of increments. Although punishment was ordered, it W.P.C. No. 25922/03 -: 2 :- appears that the corresponding fixation reducing the increment was not made at the appropriate time. It came to the notice of the respondents only when the Accounts Officer raised audit objections. The petitioner contends that the petitioner is not liable for the mistake committed by the respondents and they cannot, after so many years, recover any excess amounts paid to the petitioner, which was not on account of any mistake on the part of the petitioner. 4. I am not inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner on two grounds. First is that I am not satisfied that the petitioner cannot be said to be completely innocent in the matter. Of course, the petitioner has made a submission on 1.5.2002 regarding the same. But the petitioner knew at the time of imposition of the punishments that his increment is liable to be barred. So, after the orders of punishment when the petitioner received his salary, he should have known that punishment has not been implemented by barring the increments. Therefore, knowing fully well that punishments have not been implemented, the petitioner readily accepted the salary with the increment. As such, the petitioner is not totally innocent in the matter. Apart from that, in the statement, it has been specifically stated by the respondents that in reply to a notice from the Deputy Chief Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Transmission Circle, for recovery of the said amount, the petitioner had submitted a reply dated 11.6.2002 stating that he is incapable of remitting the amount in a lump sum and authorised the Board to deduct the amount from the DCRG. It is stated that the consent letter of the petitioner authorising recovery of the said amount from the DCRG was received in the office of the Chief Engineer on 26.8.2002. The petitioner has not chosen to controvert the said statement by filing any reply statement. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner had W.P.C. No. 25922/03 -: 3 :- agreed to the said recovery by Ext. P1. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now turn around and challenge Ext. P1. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is therefore dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/