IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 13672 of 2002(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.ANANDAN (RETIRED PEON), `VELIKAKATH', KATTOOR, KALAVOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SECRETARY, MANNANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA. 3. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, OFFICE OF THE A.G. KERALA. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANI, ADV. SRI.CHERIYAN KURUVILLA. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NOS. 22972/2002 & 58753/2002 IN O.P. NO. 13672/2002-C DISMISSED 22/02/2008. SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY STATE LIBRARIAN DTD. 29/03/2000. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. 30905/2000 DTD. 03/11/2000. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. DTD. 29/11/2000 SANCTIONING THE PETITIONER'S PENSIONARY BENEFITS. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ARREARS BILL PREPARED AND SUBSTITUTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 25/08/2001. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER DTD. 04/03/2002. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.No.13672 of 2002-C - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein was an employee of the Mannanchery Grama Panchayat. The challenge is against the action of the respondents in withholding an amount of Rs.30,184/- from the DCRG granted to him as reflected in Ext.P5. The circumstances leading to the dispute are the following: 2. The petitioner's date of birth was recorded in the school and service records in Malayalam Era as 19.2.1120 which corresponds to 5.10.1944 in Christian Era. He had studied only upto 6th standard. The petitioner ought to have retired from service on 31.10.1999. But in view of a confusion regarding the calculation of the actual date of birth, he continued in service upto 11/4/2000. The contention of the petitioner is that nobody in the department had taken any action to ascertain the actual date of superannuation which resulted in the continuance of the petitioner in service. The petitioner submits that he applied for a certificate to the State Librarian of Public Library, Trivandrum for conversion of the date of birth into Christian Era and in Ext.P1 certificate, they certified that the date of OP 13672/2002 -2- birth of the petitioner in Christian Era is 5.10.1944. 3. After his retirement since there was delay in disbursing the pension and other retirement benefits, he approached this court by filing O.P. No.30905/2000 wherein this court directed the respondents to finalise the payments due to the petitioner and effect payment within three months. Ext.P2 is the said judgment. Thereafter, the Provident Fund amount as well as monthly pension was disbursed to him. The monthly pension sanctioned is at the rate of Rs.1,965/- per month and the total amount of DCRG. is Rs.78,754/-. It is also stated that the pay revision arrears amounting to Rs.16,160/- has also not been sanctioned or disbursed. Ultimately, when Ext.P5 was issued, an amount of Rs.30,184/- is shown as withheld. According to the petitioner, the above item represents the salary paid to him between the period 31.10.1999 upto 30.4.2000. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is explained that actually the certificate from the State Library Council was obtained by the Panchayat and not at the instance of the petitioner. It is stated that as far as the claim of the petitioner for payment of Rs.30,140/- (Rs.30,184/-) is concerned, he is not eligible to get salary and allowances for the period after superannuation. It is also submitted that even if it is agreed that he has claim for Rs.30,140/-, the amount of pension paid to him for the said period and the value of leave surrender has to be deducted from the claim. OP 13672/2002 -3- 5. Going by the facts of the case, it is not under dispute that the petitioner continued in service upto 11/4/2000. He has worked as a Peon in the Panchayat. Therefore, he has a right to be paid salary, though he was due to retire on 31.10.1999. The respondents have benefited from the service rendered by the petitioner which cannot be extracted without any corresponding payment. Therefore, his entitlement for payment of salary for the period cannot be disputed. Hence, I hold that the authorities were not right in withholding an amount of Rs.30,184/- as per Ext.P5. But at the same time, the petitioner will not be entitled to be paid monthly pension and the value of leave surrender for the period from 31.10.1999 to 11.4.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that except monthly pension, the value of leave surrender has not been paid to him counting the above period. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the respondents to disburse the withheld amount less the monthly pension that is paid for the period from 31.10.1999 to 11.4.2000. The same shall be done within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ OP 13672/2002 -4- T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.13672 of 2002-C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 29th February, 2008.