IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1763 of 2005(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- O.VASU, S/O.VELU, ONGANAMKOTTIL HOUSE, P.O.SREEKRISHNAPURAM, C/O.IYER KUZHI HOUSE, PALAKKAD. CRAFT TEACHER (RETIRED), T.M.U.P. SCHOOL, P.O.PANAYOOR, PALAKKAD DT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.1763/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 3.1.2000 IN OP. NO.19043/1998 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/1773/2000 DTD. 19.5.2000 ISSUED BY ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, SHORNUR. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 13.11.2003. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.D 13.11.2003. P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 12.1.2004 IN W.P.(C) NO.950/2004(K) OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.4546/04/G.EDN. DTD. 18.10.04 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 1763 of 2005-I - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order and further seeks for a direction to the first respondent to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 18% from 31.3.1987 on the pensionary benefits as ordered as per Ext.P2 till 5.2.2002. The Government by Ext.P6 order, rejected the claim of the petitioner for interest on the ground that there is no wilful negligence in the matter. 2. The petitioner had retired from service on 31.3.1987 as a Full time Craft Teacher. Alleging that he was not paid the scale of pay of Craft Teacher from 1.4.1958, higher scale of pay from 12.6.1971 and senior grade on 12.6.1979, the petitioner submitted a representation which was rejected and later approached this Court by filing O.P. No.19043/1998 challenging the proceedings. The representation was produced therein as Ext.P1 which is dated 27.11.1986. This Court issued directions in the matter and pursuant to the same, by Ext.P2 proceedings the scale of pay of the petitioner was refixed. Accordingly, the amounts were disbursed to him also. wpc 1763/2005 2 3. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a claim for payment of interest for the delayed payment of pension arrears of Rs.49,028/-, gratuity Rs.5,700/- and commutation amount of Rs.11,786/- by filing Ext.P3 representation before the Government. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there has been unreasonable delay in refixing the pay and it was due to the negligence and laches on the part of the respondents. Even before his retirement he had requested for refixation of his pay and actually it was refixed after a lapse of 30 years. It was pointed out that since there is a delayed payment, he is entitled for interest also. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon various decisions of this Court and that of the Apex Court in this regard. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is pointed out that pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment the petitioner was sanctioned scale of pay and higher grades and accordingly an amount of Rs.48,672/- has been paid as arrears. It is pointed out that in Ext.P1 judgment, the Assistant Educational Officer was directed to revise and refix the pay of the petitioner. On receipt of the proposal dated 17.5.2000 of the Headmaster, TMUPS, Panayur, the pay of the petitioner was refixed by sanctioning wpc 1763/2005 3 higher grades with effect from 1.4.1957 as per Ext.P2 order. It was done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The refixation of pay was admitted by the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad as per letter dated 1.6.2000. Therefore, it is pointed out that in fact there was no delay in complying with the directions contained in the judgment. It is further explained in para 5 that the arrear bill for a long period of 30 years from April 1957 to March 1987 was prepared by the Headmaster. It is also pointed out that the normal delay in preparing the arrear bills for 30 years has only occurred in this case and there is no willful negligence. 7. The question is whether there was any wilful delay in disbursing the amounts in tune with the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment. The facts stated in the judgment will show that just before retirement of the petitioner on 31.3.1987 he filed the representation dated 27.11.1986 requesting to grant the scale of pay of Craft Teacher and for sanctioning higher scale of pay on different periods. Initially it was rejected as per Ext.P4 order produced in O.P.No.19043/1998. This Court, after going through various aspects, allowed the claim. Since the direction contained in Ext.P1 judgment has been complied with, it cannot be said that there has occasioned any unreasonable delay. Only by the said judgment, his wpc 1763/2005 4 entitlement was finally decided. The judgment is dated 3.1.2000 and the order is dated 19.5.2000. The admissible pension amounts were paid evidently before that order also. 8. Now the petitioner contends that delay in refixing the scale of pay was due to the negligence of the department and there was no fault on his part. In fact, the various decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are mainly concerned with the undue delay and wilful negligence in sanctioning the pensionary claims as a reason for granting interest. In this case, the said element is absent. Therefore, the principles stated in those cases may not apply to the facts of this case. The amount is paid due to refixation only. 9. As explained in the counter affidavit, the order Ext.P2 was passed within the time allowed by this Court. Apart from that, the claim for interest has not been raised by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition and there is no direction in Ext.P1 judgment also to pay any interest. 10. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for any such benefit as the sanction has been ordered in time. Therefore, this is not a fit case for granting interest and there has not been any wilful delay or negligence on the part of the respondents. wpc 1763/2005 5 11. There is a claim for balance amount of Rs.1278/- out of the total amount sanctioned by Ext.P2. It is stated that Rs.49,028/- is the amount covered by Ext.P2. This aspect will be verified and if any short payment is there, the same will be disbursed to him, if not already done. The writ petition fails and hence dismissed, subject to the above observations. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/