IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 29 of 2008() -------------------- AS.158/2001 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA OS.1156/1999 of PRL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF --------------------------------------------- C.S.UDAYAVALLY, PADMA MANDIRAM, RAMAPURAM, ARALUMMOODU P.O., ATHIYANNOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.S.KAMALA DEVI AMMA, GEETHANJALI, T.C.23/153, VALIYASALA, CHALAI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SRI. SHYSON.P.MANGUZHA FOR R2-R4 SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.29 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April 2010 ORDER Revision is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara in A.S No.158 of 2001 whereunder the decree passed by the learned Munsiff in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff in a suit for money was reversed and set aside. 2. Short facts giving rise to the revision may be summed up thus: The respondent hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff was the retired Head Mistress of a Govt. High School. She retired from service on superannuation on 31.03.1997. Her claim for gratuity had been delayed on account of the objection raised by her successor in office, the 4th defendant in the suit, in sending a false report imputing her liability in the missing of books from the library of the school, was the basis of the suit claim for delayed payment. Plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.12,240/- as interest on the gratuity amount, the payment of which was delayed by two years on the objection raised by the 4th defendant. Suit claim was sought against the State and public officials including the 4th defendant. Third and fourth defendants filed separate written statements resisting the suit claim. The trial court after examining the materials produced found merit in the C.R.P No.29 OF 2008 Page numbers case canvassed by the plaintiff and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff but fixing the liability only as against the 4th defendant alone. Fourth defendant filed an appeal challenging the decree and judgment of the trial court. The appellate court after reappreciating the materials produced in the case reversed the judgment of the trial court and nonsuited the plaintiff by allowing the appeal. Propriety and correctness of the judgment so rendered by the appellate court is assailed in this revision. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. The appellate court went wrong in interfering with the finding arrived by the trial court that the 4th defendant was liable to pay interest on the delayed payment as canvassed in the suit is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff. Reliance is placed on “Chacko v State of Kerala and others” (2000(1) KLJ 751) to contend that when an amount legally due was withheld the party responsible for withholding such payment is liable to pay interest on the amount due as compensation to the claimant. It was on account of a false report sent by the 4th defendant fixing liability on the plaintiff for the missing of the books in the library of the school there was delay in payment of her gratuity and, so much so, the wrong doer 4th defendant, is liable to pay interest on the amount which was belatedly paid, is C.R.P No.29 OF 2008 Page numbers the submission of the counsel. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/4th defendant in the suit contended that as the successor in office it was her duty to report the missing of the books to the higher authorities and it was on the orders passed by the 2nd defendant, Deputy Director of Education, liability was fixed directing reduction of the gratuity amount to the extent of the amount due to the Govt. from the plaintiff. The fact that the Govt. has later absolved the plaintiff from the liability in no way enable her to fix any liability on the 4th defendant, the successor to the office held by the plaintiff, for the delay in the payment of gratuity as she had only discharged her duty as an officer holding a public office, according to the counsel. The reversal of the decree granted by the appellate court does not warrant any interference in the given facts of the case is the submission of the learned Government Pleader. 4. I have perused the judgment passed by the learned Sub Judge and also by the learned Munsiff. It is an admitted fact that the 4th defendant took over charge as the Head Mistress of the school after the retirement of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has no case that charge was handed over to the 4th defendant on her retirement from service. It is also not disputed that a good number of books, nearly 1409, were missing from the school C.R.P No.29 OF 2008 Page numbers library at a time when the 4th defendant took over charge as the Headmistress of the institution. The audit wing after verification had also reported the missing of the books in the library. When that be the position, it goes without saying that it was the duty of the 4th defendant to report the missing of the books before the higher officials of the department of education. That alone appears to have been done by the 4th defendant, successor in office of the plaintiff, in reporting the missing of the books. It was the 2nd defendant, Deputy Director of Education, who had fixed the liability of the missing of the books on the plaintiff issuing directions to the 4th defendant that nonliability certificate should not be issued for releasing her gratuity before clearing of the liability. It also appears from the judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge that the communication sent by the 2nd defendant, Deputy Director of Education to the 4th defendant warned her that in the event of any default on her part in issuing nonliability certificate overlooking the direction, then the liability will be fixed on her for reimbursement of the amount due to the Govt. towards the missing of the books. It is also seen from the judgment that copy of the communication was sent to the plaintiff as well. Whatever be the merit of the case of the plaintiff to claim interest on the delayed payment in the given facts, such delay in C.R.P No.29 OF 2008 Page numbers the release of gratuity cannot be imputed against the 4th defendant as she had discharged only the duty cast on her, as expressed by the learned Sub Judge. The gratuity amount was delayed by two years in view of the liability fixed on her by the 2nd defendant is the basis for the suit claim. The liability fixed was only to the tune of Rs.5,000/-, and nothing prevented the plaintiff from getting the gratuity amount except to the extent of the liability fixed. If at all she was entitled to any interest on delayed payment, such claim could have been pressed into service only in respect of the sum fixed as liability. She was later absolved from the liability by the Govt. since there was no concrete evidence to show that she alone was culpable for the missing of the books does not lead to a conclusion nor even an interference supporting her claim for interest on the delayed payment. As stated earlier, the 4th defendant had only discharged her duties as the successor to the office held by the plaintiff in sending a report to the higher officials as to the missing of books. She cannot be found fault with for sending a report which no doubt was her duty. Failure or omission to do so would have resulted in fixing of liability on her for the missing of the books. I do not find any impropriety in the judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge reversing the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff and nonsuiting her in the given C.R.P No.29 OF 2008 Page numbers facts of the case. No interference with that judgment is called for. The decision relied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff has no application to the facts of the case, which related to a claim allowed in a proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act. Revision is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv