IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 29992 of 2005(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- A.V.RAVUNNY, RTD. ASST. ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, AYYERI HOUSE, VALLAKUNNU P.O., KALLETTUMKARAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.ANIL SIVARAMAN MR.HARIKRISHNAN RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHIEF OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHIEF OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHALAKKUDY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL MR.K.S.ANIL STANDING COUNSEL MR.ASOK M.CHERIYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.29992 of 2005 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of the judgment in O.P.6756/90-D of this Hon'ble Court. Ext.P2 :- Copy of the order issued by the second respondent. Ext.P3 :- Copy of the judgment in O.P.No.16894/95 of this Hon'ble court. Ext.P4 :- Copy of the order issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P5 :- Copy of the KSE Board order No.EB1-13120/79. Ext.P6 :- Copy of the model pay fixation of the Petitioner. Ext.P7 :- Copy of the model pay fixation statement under the Board Order No.Estt.111.7253/85. Ext.P8 :- Copy of the order No.EB/Law/OP16894/95 issued by the 1st respondent. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL //True Copy// P.A. To Judge S. SIRI JAGAN, J ---------------------- W.P.(C.) No.29992 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired from service of the Kerala State Electricity Board as an Assistant Engineer on 22.02.1985. His retirement benefits were not settled. By notice dated 19.02.1991, proceedings were initiated for recovery of certain alleged liabilities from the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court challenging the said proceedings and obtained Ext.P1 judgment dated 01.08.1994 wherein, the Court has directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with rules. Again by Ext.P2 order a liability of Rs.66,078/- was fixed on the petitioner. The petitioner again challenged the same before this Court and obtained Ext.P3 judgment wherein, this Court directed to reconsideration of the matter with an opportunity to apprise the Chief Engineer of his contentions, particularly the contention W.P.(C) No.29992 of 2005 -2- regarding the bar on fixation of liability under Rule 3 Part III of KSR. In the ensuing hearing pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, the petitioner raised a specific contention that in view of Note 3 of Rule 3 of Part III of KSR, no liability can be recovered from the DCRG of the petitioner since more than 3 years have already elapsed after his retirement. However, relying on Ext.P1 judgment, yet Ext.P4 order was passed fixing the liability on the petitioner to the extend of Rs.66,078.55. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order. 2. I have heard both sides. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents seeking to sustain Ext.P4 order. Going by Note 3 of Rule 3 of Part III of KSR, the fixation of liabilities is clearly barred since much more than 3 years have elapsed after the retirement of the petitioner on 22.02.1985. In fact steps were take only on 11.1.1994 to fix the liability. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court the entire DCRG has also been paid to the petitioner without deduction of any liability. As such the question of deduction of liability from the DCRG does not arise at all. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board attempted to sustain it as a recovery from the pension as permitted in Rule 3. W.P.(C) No.29992 of 2005 -3- I am of opinion that, that also can be done only if on account of any action of the petitioner, any loss has been caused to the Board, that too only in the disciplinary proceedings. Admittedly that has not been done in this case. Therefore, I am satisfied that, at this point of time no liability can be recovered from the petitioner as done in Ext.P4. Accordingly this Ext.P4 is quashed. The petitioner also seeks refixation of pay. I do not think that at this distance of time the petitioner can get refixation of pay and retirement benefits as prayed for. Needless to say if any liability has been recovered from the pension amount of the petitioner that shall be disbursed to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any other retirement benefits like Provident Fund etc. remains unpaid, the same would also be paid withing the said time of one month. This writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Jvt