IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 OP.No. 8484 of 2001(I) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.KANARAN, PUTHUSSERY, P.O.MOKERI, (VIA) KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SMT.M.R.SREELATHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. ACCOUTNANT GENERAL, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N.MANOJ THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.13665/2001 IN OP. NO.8484/2001 DISMISSED 30/08/2010 SD/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 22.3.1999 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15.6.1999 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 31.8.1999 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 7.8.2000 IN OP. NO.17541/2000 ISSUED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 8.7.2000 FROM THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 4.7.2000 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PL (ADDL.) REV./387/C/343 DTD. 9.2.2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PL/ADDL.REV/387/C/346 DTD. 9.2.2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- O.P.No.8484 of 2001 ------------------------------------- Dated 30th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retiree from the General Education Department. He retired from service on 31.3.1998 while working as Assistant Educational Officer, Kunnummal. After his retirement, vide separate orders the DCRG to the tune of Rs.57,350/- and Rs.1,30,495/- were sanctioned to the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondents did not take any step for quantifying the liability of the petitioner prior to his retirement. After his retirement, Ext.P1 provisional order fixing his liability as Rs.1580.25 for the period from 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1995 was passed. In response to Ext.P1, the petitioner had submitted an appropriate explanation. However, Ext.P1 provisional fixation order was confirmed as per Ext.P2. Later, he was issued with Ext.P3 order dated 31.8.1999 fixing a liability to the tune of Rs.30,736/- for the period from 1.4.1997 to 31.5.1998. On receipt of Ext.P3 order fixing liability, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 explanation. Even thereafter, no steps have been taken to disburse the DCRG to the petitioner. In the said circumstances, he was constrained to approach this Court by filing O.P.No.8484/2001 2 O.P.No.17541 of 2000. The said original petition was disposed of as per Ext.P5 judgment based on the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, to the effect that as per order dated 8.7.2000, an amount of Rs.19,274/- alone was fixed as the liability of the petitioner. In short, it was after fixing the liability to the tune of Rs.1,580.25 as per Ext.P1 that Ext.P3 was issued fixing the liability to the tune of Rs.30,736/-. Later, the same was modified fixing his liability as Rs.19,274/-. In the said circumstances, a direction was issued by this Court as per Ext.P5 to the respondents to pay the balance amount of gratuity to the petitioner after deducting the alleged liability of Rs.19,274/-. Evidently, the said order was complied with. It is obvious from prayer No.2 in this original petition that DCRG less the liability was disbursed to the petitioner on 19.1.2001. Of late, the liability of the petitioner was further reduced to Rs.7,084/- as per Ext.P7 order dated 4.7.2000. In short, as on today, the petitioner's liability is only Rs.7,084/-. It is evident from the facts enunciated earlier that the liability of the petitioner was fixed on various occasions at variance and lastly, the liability was reduced to Rs.7,084/-. It would thus reveal that no proper quantification of the liability was made by the respondents and at any rate there was no justification in retaining the DCRG due to the petitioner O.P.No.8484/2001 3 who retired from service on 31.3.1998. At least the respondents could have disbursed to the petitioner the DCRG less the liability that was fixed as per Ext.P3. Ext.P2 is dated 31.8.1999. As noticed earlier, as per Ext.P3 dated 31.8.1999, an amount of Rs.30,736/- was provisionally fixed as his liability. The petitioner was admittedly sanctioned DCRG to the tune of Rs.1,87,845/- by two separate orders. This would suggest that there was no reason for retaining the entire amount of DCRG by the respondents even after arriving at a conclusion that as on 31.8.1999 his liability was only to the tune of Rs.30,736/-. The non-application of mind in the matter of quantification of liability is very much evident in this case. Inasmuch as, as per Ext.P3, the liability was fixed to the tune of Rs.30,736/- and then it was reduced as per order dated 8.7.2000 as Rs.19,274/- and thereafter, as per order dated 4.7.2000 as Rs.7,084/-. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the respondents are liable to pay interest to the petitioner for the delayed payment. Evidently, as on 19.2.2001 the petitioner was paid DCRG based on Ext.P5 after deducting Rs.19,274/-. Now, Ext.P7 would reveal that the liability is reduced to the tune of Rs.7,084/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to receive the balance amount of gratuity. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to pay the balance amount of gratuity due to the petitioner O.P.No.8484/2001 4 after deducting Rs.7,084/- within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In view of my finding that there was no reason for the respondents to withhold the amount of DCRG, even after provisionally fixing his liability to the tune of Rs.30,735/-, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of DCRG less Rs.7,084/- for the period from 31.8.1999 to 19.2.2001. The respondents shall pay the amount due on account of such quantification by way of interest to the petitioner within the period stipulated as above. The original petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // True copy // P.S. to Judge