IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 36883 of 2004(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ G.V. JOSEPH, S/O.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT GOPURATHINKAL, VELLATHOOVAL P.O., IDUKKI DIST.(LINEMAN KSEB, KOLLAMKUDY). BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, GENERATION CIRCLE, MEENCUT, CHITHIRAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 36883 of 2004(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/06/1999 IN CMP.NO.22526/99 IN O.P. NO. 25842/1998. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/05/1999 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB5/23655/2004-05/1643 DATED 09/12/2004 ISSUED BY R.3. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 36883 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. The age of retirement of the employees of the Board was 55 years. Petitioner filed O.P. No.25842/1998 before this court contending that, he is entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years and therefore he cannot be retired on 31.12.1998, on which date the petitioner was to attain the age of 55 years. By Ext.P1 interim order this court stayed the operation of the order retiring the petitioner on attaining the age of 55 years. In view of the stay, the petitioner was allowed to continue to stay in the quarters allotted to him. That stay continued till the petitioner attained the age of 60 years and thereafter the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. Therefore the petitioner vacated the quarters. But by Ext.P3, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.86,125/- as W.P.(C)No. 36883 of 2004 2 penal rent for unauthorized occupation of the quarters after his date of attaining 55 years of age till he vacated it on 27.05.2003. That is under challenge in this writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be saddled with any liability to pay penal interest insofar as he was continuing in the quarters on the strength of an interim order of this court and that he was occupying the quarters as an employee of the Board, while serving the Board. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent supporting the demand for penal rent. The counsel for the Electricity Board strenuously argued before me that, once the writ petition is dismissed without any further directions as to how the period after his date of retirement till the date of his attaining 60 years has to be reckoned, the petitioner is not eligible for any benefit in respect of the period during which he continued on the basis of the interim orders. Once the writ petition is W.P.(C)No. 36883 of 2004 3 dismissed, the interim orders also stands cancelled. That being so, no benefits can enure to the petitioner in respect of the period covered by the order of stay, once the writ petition is finally dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Board that, the petitioner worked not because the Electricity Board wanted him to work, but only because he was imposed on them by the petitioner himself by obtaining an interim order to continue him in service. Once the writ petition is dismissed his continued service after 31.12.1998 itself is without authority and consequently the occupation of the quarters after 31.12.1998 is unauthorized and therefore the petitioner is liable to pay penal rent during the period which the petitioner occupied the quarters illegally. According to the counsel for the Electricity Board, the rent has been calculated only at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month, which is a very meager rate when compared to the rent which a building similar to the quarters would fetch in that locality during the relevant W.P.(C)No. 36883 of 2004 4 time. Therefore the amount fixed is also fair and reasonable is the contention of the standing counsel. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The contentions of the counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board may not be totally out of place. But it cannot be forgotten that the petitioner was continuing to occupy the quarters while when he was actually rendering service to the Kerala State Electricity Board that too on the basis of an interim order of this court. Although, ultimately the original petition was dismissed, he rendered service to the Electricity Board for which he has been paid also. That being so, I am of opinion that, the Electricity Board should take a lenient view in the matter. Therefore I hold that it is not just and equitable to recover penal rent from the petitioner as per Exts.P3. Accordingly Ext.P3 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/