IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35454 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. V.A.KUNJU MOHAMMED,RETIRED PERSONNEL MANAGER,STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., VETTITHITTA P.O.,PUNALUR,SHANGRILA, HOUSE NO.3/397,NEAR RAILWAY STATION,PUNALUR. 2. A.CHANDRABABU, RETIRED FULED SUPERVISOR GRADE I, STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., VETTITHITTA P.O., PUNALUR, AMALI, THATTAMALA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. C.PONNAN PILLAI, RETIRED FIELD OFFICER, STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., VETTITHITTA P.O., PUNALUR, VALLIKKEEZHU VADAKKATHIL, KUREEPUZHASSERY, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. D.AROMAL UNNI, FIELD SUPERVISOR GR.I, STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, VETTITHALA P.O., PUNALUR. 5. K.SARASWATHY AMMA, FULL TIME SWEEPER, STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, VETTITHALA P.O., PUNALUR. 6. T.MATHAI, FIELD OFFICER, STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, VETTITHALA P.O., PUNALUR. 7. C.D.ABRAHAM, FIELD SUPERVISOR, STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, VETTITHALA P.O., PUNALUR. 8. N.VIJAYAKUMAR, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, VETTITHALA P.O., PUNALUR. 9. R.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR, LABOUR WELFARE OFFICER, STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, VETTITHALA P.O., PUNALUR. 10. A.SALAHUDEEN, SECURITY, STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, VETTITHALA P.O., PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VETTITHITTA P.O., PUNALUR. BY G.P. SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R1 S.C. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 35454 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners 1 to 3 are retired employees of the second respondent and petitioners 4 to 10 are still in service. They have availed of a housing loans from the second respondent. 2. It is stated that there was a scheme in the company, which provided for house building advance to its employees, availing a loan from H.D.F.C. The interest rate fixed by H.D.F.C. was at 10.5%, but interest at the rate of 7.25% alone was being realized from the workers and difference in interest, was being paid by the company itself as a subsidy. 3. Subsequently, the company extended the above benefit to the staff and officers also and this was subject to approval of the Government. However, without waiting for Government's approval, the company extended the benefit of interest subsidy to the staff and officers and the petitioners are beneficiaries of the said anticipatory action of the company. 4. The Government considered the matter and by Et.P4 rejected sanction and directed that the amount incurred by the company should be recovered from the beneficiaries. Though Ext.P4 was issued as early as on W.P.(C) No. 35454/09 2 7-8-1999, the company did not discontinue the scheme or effect consequential recovery. On the other hand, it again took up the matter with the Government by filing Ext.P5 dated 4-4-2003 seeking reconsideration of Ext.P4. During the pendency of the matter before the Government, the second respondent issued Ext.P6 advising to discontinue the system from August 2004. Thereupon W.P.(C) No. 30146 of 2004 was filed before this Court and the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment directing the Government to decide on Ext.P5 representation made by the company. Accordingly, the representation was considered and by Ext.P10 the Government declined to reconsider the matter and directed to recovery of the amount paid, which is challenged in this writ petition. 5. As already seen when the company sought sanction by Ext.P3 the Government issued Ext.P4 order as early as on 7-8-1999 declining the sanction and directing the company to discontinue the scheme and recover the amount already paid. Despite this, the company admittedly continued payment and made Ext.P5 request for continuing the subsidy scheme and thus siphon out its resources. This request has been rejected by Ext.P10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Ext.P10 does not contain any reason. As already seen, payment made was subject to Government sanction which is a pure administrative decision. Sanction was declined and W.P.(C) No. 35454/09 3 in any view it need not contain detailed reasons, especially when none had any legal right to claim that the company should continue the subsidy scheme, as to why it was not possible for the Government to agree with the request made. Since the payment was in the anticipation of the Government sanction and sanction has been declined, the petitioners will have refunded the benefits received. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. mn.