IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37488 of 2008(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PURUSHOTHAMAN A.T, (DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER) (RETIRED) 'BHAVANA', THERURPARLAYODU, EDAYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 595. BY ADV. MR.SARVOTHAMAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 039. 3. SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 039. 4. DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.P. MOHAMMED FAZIL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.37488/2008-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.1543/2001/FIN. DT. 11/12/2001. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.LA CELL (MCA)/IX/PCA 485/1352 DTD. 08/03/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NON-DRAWAL CERTIFICATE DTD. 29/04/2006 ISSUED BY THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, MATTANNUR. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RETURNED REQUEST FROM THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. G2/7549/06 DTD. 04/04/2007. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.4919/07/FIN. DT. 22/06/2007. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 06/08/2007 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.37488 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated 16th July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a pensioner. He retired from service on 31.8.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the non-payment of the DCRG in full. According to the petitioner, the respondents have illegally withheld the sum of Rs.60231/= from the DCRG sanctioned to him. 2. The petitioner had applied for a loan to purchase a personal computer. By Ext.P1 order dated 11.12.2001 the Government sanctioned the said loan. The petitioner did not however avail the loan. It appears, the Government did not issue orders cancelling Ext.P1 till Ext.P6 order was issued on 22.6.2007. In the meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service. On the erroneous assumption that the sum of Rs.45,000/= sanctioned as per Ext.P1 and the interest thereon was due from the petitioner, the sum of Rs.60231/= was withheld from his DCRG. This writ petition was thereupon filed seeking payment of the said sum with interest thereon at 18% per annum. 3. Respondents 1 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit dated 13.7.2009 wherein it is conceded that the petitioner did not avail the advance sanctioned as per Ext.P1. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a WP(C).No.37488/2008 2 counter affidavit dated 7.7.2009 essentially blaming the petitioner for not getting Ext.P1 cancelled. It is also stated that a copy of Ext.P6 was not received. As respondents 2 and 3 had no intimation regarding repayment of the loan, DCRG was not disbursed in full it is submitted. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not avail the loan sanctioned as per Ext.P1. He retired from service only on 31.8.2006. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner had represented to the respondents that he had not availed the loan sanctioned as per Ext.P1. Whether the petitioner had availed the loan sanctioned as per Ext.P1 is a matter which could have been verified at least within three months from the date on which he retired from service. Instead the respondents chose to withhold the sum of Rs.60231/= from the DCRG sanctioned to him. The petitioner cannot be blamed for the lapses on the part of the Government in cancelling Ext.P1. Ext.P6 order cancelling Ext.P1 was issued only on 22.6.2007, nearly one year after the petitioner retired from service. I am therefore persuaded to hold that the sum of Rs.60231/= was illegally withheld from the DCRG sanctioned to the petitioner. Respondents 2 and 3 have in their affidavit stated that the payment of the sum of Rs.60231/= was sanctioned on 10.2.2009. It is however WP(C).No.37488/2008 3 submitted that the petitioner has not withdrawn the said amount. In my opinion, on the admitted facts of the case, the petitioner is entitled to be compensated by award of interest for the delayed payment of DCRG. I accordingly dispose of this with petition with a direction to the respondents to disburse to the petitioner the balance amount of Rs.60231/= together with simple interest thereon at 7.5% per annum commencing from 1.1.2007 till 10.2.2009. Payment as directed above shall be made within one month from today. It will be open to the Government to recover the interest thus paid to the petitioner from the officers responsible for withholding the payment of DCRG sanctioned to the petitioner in full, namely the officers who failed to alert the Accountant General in time that no amount is due from the petitioner. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS WP(C).No.37488/2008 4 P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.37488 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated 29th June, 2009 ORDER On 18.12.2008, while admitting the writ petition, this Court directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit and state how and in what manner the loan sanctioned by Ext.P1 order was disbursed to the petitioner. They were also directed to produce proof of disbursement if any. Though more than six months have passed after the writ petition was admitted and the interim order was passed, till date the respondents have not chosen to file a counter affidavit. Instead, they have passed an order on 10.2.2009 directing disbursement of DCRG to the petitioner. In my opinion, in the light of the order passed by this Court on 18.12.2008, the respondents had a duty to file a counter affidavit producing the details called for by this Court. The said direction has not been complied with. I am therefore prima facie satisfied that the respondents are liable to be proceeded against. However, as a last chance I grant to the respondents, time till 15.7.2009 to file counter affidavit as directed by this Court. Post on 16.7.2009. WP(C).No.37488/2008 5 P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS