IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 WA.No. 2051 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3002/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS. -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, PALGHAT. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PALGHAT. 5. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, SUB TREASURY, PALGHAT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER. -------------------------- K.VALSALA, RTD.HEADMISTRESS OF PALLIPURAM UNION U.P.SCHOOL, KARTHIKA (H), SANTHOSH NAGAR, PIRAYIRI P.O., PALGHAT - 678 019. ADV. SMT.LEELA NARAYANAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------ WA NO.2051 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 16th September 2009 Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The writ petitioner is the respondent. The brief facts of the case are the following : 2. The respondent writ petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2006, while she was working as Headmistress of Pallipuram Union U.P.School, Palakkad. Ext.P1 pension payment order was issued to her on 27.07.2006. For want of NLC, she was not paid the DCRG and her pension was released, taking into account, the pre- revised scale. Therefore, praying for granting the pensionary benefits in the revised scale of pay and for issuance of NLC, she filed WP (C) No.29370/06. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 11.12.2006 directing the 2nd respondent therein to take a decision on her representation Ext.P4 produced in that Writ Petition. Even thereafter, when neither the NLC was issued nor the pensionary benefits were released, she again approached this court seeking the following reliefs : WA No.2051/07 2 “a) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioner in accordance with the revised pay scale. b) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the 4th respondent to issue NLC/LC with immediate effect. c) To direct the 1st respondent to pay statutory interest for withholding NLC without sufficient reason. d) To issue any other writ, declaration, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.” In the Writ Petition, the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad filed a counter affidavit in which it was submitted as follows : “The Accountant General, Thiruvananthapuram at the time of local audit of Accounts and Registers of Office of the Assistant Educational Officer, Palakkad, objected the refixation of pay of the petitioner at Rs.5,800/- with effect from 1.7.1998 in the pay. Headmasters' scale of pay is Rs.5,500- 9075/-. The objection was dropped by the Accountant General only on 5.4.2006 and the fixation of pay in the revised scale has been admitted by this office on 30.5.2006. Then the proposal for revised pensionary benefits has been forwarded to the Accountant General, Thiruvananthapuram by the 4th respondent on 11.12.2006 as per No.A-5054/06 dated 7.12.2006.” WA No.2051/07 3 The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, disposed of the Writ Petition with the following directions : “In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and pass appropriate consequential orders and disburse the entire amount due towards revised pensionary benefits to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As regards the claim for statutory interest for the delayed payment, I am satisfied that interest of justice will be met if respondents No.3 and 4 are directed to pay jointly Rs.2,500/- towards cost of this proceeding to the petitioner from their pocket. The payment shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” Feeling aggrieved by the direction to pay costs to the tune of Rs.2,500/- in lieu of statutory interest for the delayed payment, this appeal is filed. The learned Single Judge passed the said order, noticing that though the third respondent made fixation of pay in the revised scale as early as on 30th May 2006, the 4th respondent forwarded the pension papers to the office of the Accountant General for sanction only on 11th December 2006. There was unexplained delay of about 7 months in forwarding the papers. Therefore, the WA No.2051/07 4 learned Single Judge, in his discretion, directed respondents 3 and 4, who are appellants 3 and 4 herein, to pay costs of Rs.2,500/-. There is no direction to pay interest for the delayed payment. So, in fact, the State stood to gain and there is no reason for the State to feel aggrieved by the above direction. We notice that respondents 3 and 4 were responsible for the delay in forwarding the pension papers, which resulted in the delayed payment of pensionary benefits. Normally, costs should follow the event. That principle has been followed in this case. When an order passed in the discretion of a Single Judge is challenged, the Division Bench can interfere with it, if only it is shown that the exercise of discretion was contrary to law or was perverse. We find that having regard to the cost of prosecuting a writ petition in these days, the costs ordered is very moderate. Further, it is directed to be paid from the pockets of appellants 3 and 4 so that it will be a lesson to them and others. Having regard to the above facts, we find no reason to interfere with WA No.2051/07 5 the direction of the learned Single Judge to pay costs. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WA No.2051/07 6