IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2006 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1928 OP.No. 14055 of 2003(W) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. V.K.SUBRAMANYAN, SENIOR FOREMAN (MACHINE) RTD., GOVT.PRESS ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT 'LAKSHMIKESAVAM' VALLIKKUNNATH HOUSE NO.507-A, PO CHOTTHANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. D.DHANAPALAN, SENIOR FOREMAN (RTD), KUTTAZHATH HOUSE, TC 43/526, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT KUTTAZHATH HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGAM, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.CHERIAN VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF PRINTING & STATIONERY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PRINTING & STATIONERY GOVT.CENTRAL PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SMT. BINDU THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.23711/2003 DISMISSED. 28.11.2006 SD/- A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER OF PETITIONER NO.1 DATED /10/91 EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF DO. OF 2ND PETITIONER DATED 16.8.1991 EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF NOTICE FOR RECOVERY DATED 24.3.2003 // TRUE COPY // A. K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.No. 14055 Of 2003-W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of November, 2006. JUDGMENT This original petition depicts the extremely callous and casual manner in which some of the officers of State discharge their duties. The result most often is unnecessary harassment to those who had served the State for years. 2. Petitioners in this original petition had retired from service on superannuation on August 31, 1991 while they were working as Senior Foreman (Machines) in the Government Press at Ernakulam, under the Department of Printing and Stationery. As pensioners, petitioners had been receiving their monthly pension which was duly reckoned shortly after their retirement. Then came Ext.P3 notice after a lapse of about 12 years from the date of their retirement. By Ext.P3 notice respondent No.2 informed the petitioners that they had been paid a sum of Rs.20,069/- in excess towards salary during the period when they were in service. Therefore, petitioners were directed to remit the above sum within 15 days from the date of receipt of Ext.P3 notice, failing which, they were threatened that appropriate action will be taken against them. 3. Respondents have not filed counter affidavit so far, presumably and apparently for the reason that the action of respondent No.2 could not have been justified in any manner. Ext.P3 notice is evidently against Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III Kerala Service Rules. It is also against Rule 3-C of the above Rules. Note 3 o.p.14055/2003 2 stipulates that the liabilities of an employee should be quantified either before or after his retirement and intimated to him before retirement if possible or after retirement within a period of three years of becoming pensioner. It further postulates that the liabilities of a pensioner should be quantified and intimated to him. Rule 3-C mandates that notwithstanding anything contained in the rules, recovery of excess payments made to an officer by mistake within a period of four years before his retirement and which are detected within a period of four years after retirement alone can be recovered from his pension and other amounts due to him after retirement. 4. It is pertinent to note that Ext.P3 notice was issued purportedly invoking the power under Rule 3-C of Part III K.S.R. This could not have been done as is evident from a perusal of Rule 3-C referred to above. As has been noticed already, petitioners had retired from service way back in the year 1991. There is nothing on record to indicate that petitioners had been served with any notice about the alleged liability within a period of four years before their retirement. There is also nothing to indicate that the excess payment allegedly made to the petitioners had been detected within a period of four years after their retirement. In any view of the matter, the respondents, in my view, were not at all justified in issuing Ext.P3. It may be true that no further action was taken pursuant to Ext.P3 obviously because as soon as the petitioners were served with Ext.P3, they had approached this court and obtained an order of stay of operation and implementation of Ext.P3 o.p.14055/2003 3 order. Learned counsel submits that if the petitioners had not been given the benefit of the order of stay by this court, necessarily the respondents might have proceeded against them and effected recovery. The above submission is not without force or justification. 5. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P3 notice is nothing but an illegal and colourable exercise of power. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that respondents respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay cost to the petitioners. In the result, the original petition is allowed. Ext.P3 is quashed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to each of the petitioners within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (A.K. Basheer) Judge. Kav/ o.p.14055/2003 4 A.K. BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - -- O.P.NO.14055 OF 2003-W - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 28TH NOVEMBER, 2006.