IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 13524 of 2006(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.KARUNAKARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 60 YEARS, VEHICLE SUPERVISOR, (RETD) KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND RESIDING AT KOVILAKAM, V.V. NRA-57, V.V.NAGAR, NCC ROAD, PEROORKADA, TRIVANDRUM. ADDITIONAL PETITIONER: 2. P.THANKAMONY, W/O.LATE KARUNAKARAN, KOVILAKOM, VILAVILAKAM NRA-57, V.V.NAGAR, NCC ROAD, PEROORKADA, TRIVANDRUM (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PETITIONER)_ (ADDL.P2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.1727/07) BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 & R2 SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 13524/06. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DT.3.4.99. P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.17.4.99. P3. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD.17.4.99. P4. COPY OF THE GOVT ORDER DTD.28.12.90. P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 28868/99 OF THIS COURT. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.4.1.06 OF R1. P7. COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DTD.28.3.06. P8. COPY OF THE ORDERDTD.14.8.97 P9. COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE. P10. COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C).No. 13524/06 DTD.21.2.08 OF THIS COURT. P11. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.26.2.08 BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.13524 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition discloses the sad plight of a widow of a deceased employee of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. This writ petition was originally filed by the employee seeking the following reliefs: “i) call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P7 Order: ii) declare that Ext.P7 is unsustainable in the eyes of law: iii) issue a Writ of Certiorari or appropriate writ or order or direction quashing Ext.P7; iv) declare that the petitioner is entitled to balance amount of Rs.22,129/- out of reimbursement claim of Rs.81,570/- minus advance paid to the petitioner; v) issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents to refund the medical reimbursement amount of Rs.22,129/- payable to the petitioner along with interest @ 6% per annum from 1.2.2001 to the date of payment; vi) issue of Writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ or order or direction to settle the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner as evidenced in Ext.P6 within a reasonable time;” 2. While the writ petition was pending, the employee died and the widow has impleaded herself as legal heir and additional petitioner in the writ petition. As is evident from the prayers in the writ petition, the issue mainly relates to withholding of w.p.c.13524/06 2 certain amounts from the DCRG due to the deceased employee and non-payment of medical reimbursement amounts due to the deceased employee. 3. The matter was elaborately heard by me on 21.2.2008 and I passed the following order; 'An employee of the KSRTC, who has been fighting against an order imposing liability on him in respect of medical reimbursement, filed this writ petition and he is now no more. His widow is prosecuting the writ petition. Earlier the amount fixed as liability on the employee was Rs.36,939/- He challenged the same before this Court in O.P. No.28868/99. In that original petition, the KSRTC did not file any counter affidavit for a period of six years. Therefore this Court passed the following judgment. “The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- “i) call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P1 order; ii) declare that Ext.P1 order is unsustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari; iii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to balance amount of Rs.22,129/ out of medical reimbursement claim of Rs.81,570/- minus advance paid to the petitioner; iv) issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents to refund the medical reimbursement amount payable to the petitioner within a reasonable time.” There is no counter affidavit. According to the petitioner when amounts are due to be disbursed to him steps have been taken to recover the amounts already paid to him. Apparently no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner before passing Ext.P1. Petitioner also has a case that amounts have been illegally recovered from him. It is also contended that as per Ext.P3 Government Order no interest is to be charged. In the absence of a counter affidavit w.p.c.13524/06 3 none of these contentions can be appreciated. The writ petition is hence disposed of as follows. Ext.P1 is quashed. There will be a direction to the first respondent to look into the claims made by the petitioner and the alleged claims against the petitioner with notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action thereon in accordance with law. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.” Thereafter allegedly pursuant to the said direction, the KSRTC passed Ext.P7 order thus: “In compliance to the directions contained in the judgment in W.P.(C) 28868/1999, the issue relating to the refund of financial assistance sanctioned to Shri. K. Karunakaran, was examined in the light of relevant records, Rules in force and on the basis of the depositions made by him during the personal hearing. As per the records an amount of Rs.46925/- is outstanding towards balance of financial assistance paid, to him earlier. This amount along with 10% interest amounting to Rs.82,909/- will be recovered from the DCRG payable to you from the Corporation. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by its interim order in WP(C) No.31233/04/Dt.10.1.05 had directed not to make payment of DCRG until further orders of the Court. Hence the payment after deducting Rs.82909/- towards refund of financial assistance can be made only after the final disposal of the said writ petition”. Therefore the principal amount has been hiked to Rs.46,925/- from Rs.36,939/- and no reason is mentioned for the same. Absolutely none of the contentions of the petitioner relating to the issue was even referred to in Ext.P7 order holding that the amount outstanding towards balance of financial assistance paid is Rs.46,925/-. This is a totally unacceptable conduct of the respondents. According to the petitioner, going by his calculation as explained in the writ petition an amount of Rs.22,129/- is due to him as balance of medical reimbursement. In view of the shifting stands of the KSRTC and in view of the total lack of reasoning in the impugned order, the records of the KSRTC are suspect. At this point of time the widow may not be in a position to prove the case of the employee also. In the above circumstances, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the question as to whether the proceedings for recovery can be dropped particularly in view of the death of the employee and the widow, who is prosecuting the matter would not be in a position to controvert any of the statements of the Corporation, at this point of w.p.c.13524/06 4 time which situation arose because of the arbitrary action of the Corporation. Orders in this regard shall be passed within one month from today.' 4. Even after a lapse of almost 9 months, the KSRTC is unable to take a decision in the matter except to tell me that the Managing Director has decided to waive the amount of Rs.35,984/- from the interest payable by the deceased employee. From the above order, it is abundantly clear that, that is not what this Court wanted the Managing Director to do. When the KSRTC themselves have no records to convincingly prove before me that the liability is due from the deceased employee, which has been elaborately dealt with me in the interim order, I do not think that there is any point in further waiting for a decision by the KSRTC in the matter, although the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSRTC would submit that further time may be granted to obtain orders from the Board. In the above circumstances, I quash Ext.P7 order wherein an amount of Rs.46,925/- is sought to be recovered from the retirement benefits of the deceased husband of the petitioner. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that not only that amount, other retirement benefits due to the 1st petitioner w.p.c.13524/06 5 have also not been paid to the 2nd petitioner. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The withheld amount of Rs.46,925/- shall be paid to the 2nd petitioner without interest. If apart from that amount any other amounts are due as terminal benefits of the 1st petitioner, the balance retirement benefits due to the 1st petitioner shall be paid to the 2nd petitioner with nine per cent interest from the date when the same became due to the 1st petitioner. The above shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the above amounts are not paid within the said one month, the withheld amount of Rs.46,925/- also would carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date when the same became to the 1st petitioner. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am not granting the relief regarding medical reimbursement claimed by the employee. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.13524/06 6