IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 12829 of 2004(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M.T.JOSE, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 59 YEARS, INSPECTOR (RETIRED), K.S.R.T.C., CHALAKKUDY, AND RESIDING AT MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, PUDUKKAD, VIYYOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C, CHALAKKUDY. ADV.SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R1,R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12829/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER – PENSIONER'S PORTION ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. DT. 1/08/2000. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE INTIMATION SLIP OF PENSION PAYMENT ORDER NO. IA1/P2/2001-02 DT. 14/2/2002 BY THE R2. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE LETTER NO. IA1/P2/2001-02 DT. 13/2/2002 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE R2. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE LETTER NO. E1/27/2600/CLDY DT. 20/1/2000 BY THE R2 TO THE DIST. TRANSPORT OFFICER, PEROORKADA. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 8/1/2003 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R1 WITHOUT EXHIBITS. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 3/11/2003 IN OP NO. 2739/2003 BY THIS COURT. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE LETTER NO. PA6. 022241/00 DT. 17/2/2004 BY R1 TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1A. COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT DT. 3/07/99. EXT.R1B. COPY OF THE DECLARATION DT. 27/4/2002. EXT.R1C. COPY OF THE DECLARATION DT. 1/07/00. True copy Tga K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Writ Petition (C) No.12829 of 2004-B -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment The petitioner retired from the service of the KSRTC, while working as Inspector on 31.05.2000. As per Ext.P1 pension payment order dated 01.08.2000, his monthly pension was fixed as Rs.4,942/-. Later, by Ext.P2 order dated 14.2.2002, the pension was revised as Rs.4,585/-. The petitioner submits, it was done without notice to him. Later, as per Ext.P3, the commuted value of pension was also reduced by re-computing the same based on the revised pension @ Rs.4,585/-. While the pension was reduced by Ext.P2 dated 14.02.2002, there was a simultaneous direction to recover the excess amount paid, in instalments. Feeling aggrieved by the reduction of pension, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation before the Managing Director of the KSRTC. This Court directed the KSRTC to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. Though the petitioner was called for a hearing by the Managing Director, without hearing him, by Ext.P7, his representation was rejected, it is submitted. The reason for the reduction of pension is the reduction of the monthly salary payable to him at the time of WPC 12829/04 2 retirement. The petitioner went on leave without allowance from 01.02.1994 to 10.09.1996. Initially, the said leave was granted as LWA without medical certificate. Later, on his representation, it is submitted, it was converted as LWA with medical certificate. If the LWA with medical certificate was granted, he was entitled to count the period of absence for all service benefits. If the leave is granted without medical certificate, the said period of absence will not be counted for any service benefits. The same will result in reduction of the last pay drawn and consequential reduction in the monthly pension. The petitioner submits, as evident from Ext.P4, the Manager (PA) had issued telephonic instruction on his representation to treat the period of his absence as LWA with medical certificate. If the Controlling Officers have failed to make appropriate entries in the service book, he is not responsible for the same. So, the petitioner attacks the reduction of pension on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and also on the ground that he has been actually granted LWA with medical certificate and when the same has been acted upon by all the authorities, they cannot resile from the said stand after the lapse of two years. Therefore, he prays for quashing Ext.P7 apart from Exts.P2 and P3 and also seeks consequential reliefs. WPC 12829/04 3 2. The KSRTC has filed a counter affidavit in which it is submitted that the reduction in pension happened due to the reduction in the monthly salary payable to the petitioner. On the basis of the audit objection, the period of absence of the petitioner from 01.02.1994 to 10.09.1996 was treated as LWA without medical certificate. As evident from the Board order dated 03.09.1996 pasted in the service book of the petitioner, the period of his absence was treated as LWA without medical certificate. Later, it was changed as LWA with medical certificate, based on a message received from the Manager (PA). But no authority or confirmation is seen furnished in the service book. The Audit Officer, as early as on 03.07.1999, raised the above objection as per Ext.R1 (a). That objection was later implemented, which resulted in the issuance of Exts.P2 and P3, it is submitted. Further, the petitioner has given declarations Exts.R1(b) and R1(c) in the year 2000 as well as in 2002, agreeing to refund any amount, on demand, found to have been paid to him in excess, in future. Therefore, he is not entitled to any reliefs in the Writ Petition, it is submitted. 3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The audit objection was, in fact, raised on 03.07.1999. The objection raised was valid also. The change in the nature of leave was made based on a telephone message. In emergent WPC 12829/04 4 situations, such actions will have to be taken. But, later, there should be confirmation for the telephone message in writing. In the instant case, there was no confirmation. No authority for changing the nature of the leave was also found in the service book. The officers concerned were not able to produce it before the Audit Officer. The petitioner submits, the service book is maintained by the Controlling Officers. If there is some omission in maintaining it properly, he is not, in any way, responsible for the same, it is submitted. 4. Normally, whenever an order is passed, the same will be communicated to all concerned, including the employee. The petitioner entered service after the leave based on an order of the Chief Officer dated 03.09.1996, treating the period as LWA without medical certificate. If there is no subsequent order in the service book or with the petitioner, it means that pursuant to the telephone message, no order in writing was actually issued. In the absence of any order, the Audit Officer cannot be blamed for pointing out the irregularity. Once there is audit objection, the concerned controlling officers are bound to reduce and revise the salary correspondingly. That was only done in this case. Of course, there is some delay in doing that. Though the audit WPC 12829/04 5 objection was raised as early as on 03.07.1999, it was implemented only in 2003. A public authority should be conceded freedom to correct a mistake, which it found out in fixing the pension. So, no illegality could be alleged against the action of the KSRTC in revising the pay and the consequential reduction in pension in the light of the audit objection. The competent authority of the KSRTC was only discharging its duty. The grievance of the petitioner regarding recovery of excess payments also cannot be accepted in view of Exts.R1(b) and (c) undertakings given by him. 5. Since, on merit, the petitioner does not have any case, it will be a futile and empty formality in remitting the matter on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. It has also to be noticed that the petitioner has not chosen to file any reply to the counter affidavit filed on 23.04.2004 and has not produced any material to dislodge the submissions made therein. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. 23.05.2008 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE sta WPC 12829/04 6