IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 8419 of 2007(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.G.RAJU, RETIRED STRONG ROOM GUARD, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, RESIDING AT KRISHNALAYAM, ULLANNUR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 503. BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P. GOPAL, SC, TDB R3 – BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8419 of 2007(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.4689/85/ESTT. DATED 11.5.1989 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.1.07 P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.SDP/ESTT.A(1) DATED 9.2.07 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT FROM EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. P4: TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION RAISED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 7.10.06. P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.4.07 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM ACCOUNTS OFFICER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 7.10.2006. R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM ACCOUNTS OFFICER DATED 24.4.2007. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE Scl. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8419 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a Strong Room Guard of the Travancore Devaswom Board. He retired from service on 30.4.2006. He filed this writ petition complaining of delay in disbursal of the retirement benefits. In the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Devaswom board stating that by Ext.R1(a) dated 7.10.2006, the Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit has raised an audit objection relating to his fixation of higher grade on 1.4.1989 and directed recovery of the excess amount paid to him on account of wrong fixation. On receipt of the same, by Ext.R1(b) dated 24.4.2007, the petitioner was informed about the same. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner was never informed about any audit objection or irregularity in fixation of pay. Therefore, no recovery can be made from the petitioner on account of the wrong fixation of pay, which was communicated to the petitioner only after his retirement that too, W.P.(C)No.8419/07 2 after seventeen years of the alleged irregular fixation. Consequently, the petitioner has also got the writ petition amended challenging Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) as well which are Exts.P4 and P5 in the amended writ petition. The petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Aleyamma Varghese v. Secretary, General Education Department [2007 (3) KLT 700 (SC)], wherein the Supreme Court has held that recovery from pay on account of audit objection after a long time is not proper. 2. The Devaswom Board has in their counter affidavit disowned responsibility for the delay in disbursal of the pensionary benefits, since, according to them, without clearing the audit objection, the retirement benefits could not have been released to the petitioner. The Government has not chosen to file any counter affidavit. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Admittedly, the alleged irregular pay fixation was done as early as in 1989. But, according to the Devaswom Board, there is no irregular fixation at all. It is settled law that the audit objection is not an end in itself. Based on the audit objection, the employee concerned has to be given a notice and the W.P.(C)No.8419/07 3 authority competent to do so should consider the objection and take a decision on the audit objection. The Travancore Devaswom Board, who has considered the audit objection, would in their counter affidavit take the stand that there is nothing wrong in the fixation of pay of the petitioner. Unless the Government takes a different view, I do not think that the petitioner can be saddled with any liability on the basis of the audit objection, which was never put to him during his period of service. In the above circumstances, I hold that the petitioner cannot be visited with any adverse consequence based on Exts.P4 and P5, insofar as the authority competent to take a decision on the audit objection would contend that the fixation of pay was proper. The Government has not chosen to take a different view even by filing a counter affidavit. That being so, no amount can be recovered from the petitioner on account of the audit objection. Even otherwise, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Aleyamma Varghese' case (supra), no recovery can be made on account of audit objection after a long period of time. In this case, the long delay extends to 17 years. Therefore, the ratio of that decision squarely applies to W.P.(C)No.8419/07 4 the petitioner's case. Pursuant to interim orders of this Court, all amounts except an amount of Rs.11,500/- has already been disbursed to the petitioner from his retirement benefits. The balance amount withheld is also directed to be disbursed to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.8419/07 5