IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37389 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.VIJAYARAJAN, MITHILA, PRANAVAM NAGAR, MANNUTHI P.O., OLLOOKARA, THRISSUR - 680 651. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (ERB) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. KERALA STATE YOUTH WELFARE BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY STATE YOUTH CENTER, T.C. 27/400, GENERAL HOSPITAL ROAD, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (GENERAL), COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 37389 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T One Sri.C.S.Ramakrishnan filed O.P.No.6756/1993 contending that he is entitled to continue in service till the age of 58 years. This Court upheld his contention that he was illegally not permitted to hold office till the age of 58 years and, therefore, it was held that he is entitled to receive pay and allowances for the period during which he was kept out of service before he attained the age of 58 years. It was further directed that benefits shall be disbursed within a period of three months, failing which, Sri.C.S.Ramakrishnan was directed to be paid interest on the amounts due to him. According to the petitioner, since the 1st respondent gave sanction for payment only on the last day fixed by this Court for payment, monetary benefits could not be paid within the stipulated period. Therefore, Sri.C.S.Ramakrishnan filed a suit claiming interest for the belated payment, which was decreed, pursuant to which, interest was also disbursed to Sri.C.S.Ramakrishnan. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated to fix the liability for the interest and ultimately orders have been passed holding that it is the petitioner who has to bear the burden. Accordingly, by Ext.P5 order, sanction was accorded by the Government to the Commissioner of Rural Development to institute judicial proceedings w.p.c.37389/10 2 against the petitioner for recovery of an amount of ` 1,05,112/- as alleged loss sustained by the Government in the matter. According to the petitioner, it was not because of any default on the part of the petitioner that the delay in payment of the amounts due to Sri.C.S.Ramakrishnan occurred and, therefore, the petitioner is in no way liable for the loss sustained on account of payment of interest to the said Sri.C.S.Ramakrishnan. As such, according to the petitioner, the orders directing recovery of the said amount from the petitioner and sanction to institute judicial proceedings for recovery of the same are clearly vitiated. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “(i) call for the records leading to the passing of Ex (sic) P5 & P6 and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction. (ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 3 to refrain themselves from initiating any coercive proceedings against the petitioner before a proper enquiry is conducted and the petitioner afforded an opportunity of being heard. (iii) declare that the petitioner is not liable to be proceeded against since the conduct of the 1st respondent itself frustrated Ex P1 (sic) judgment.” 2. I am not inclined to go into the merits of the contentions of the petitioner especially since it would require evidence to decide as to who is responsible for the delay in disbursement of the amounts due to Sri.C.S.Ramakrishnan, which led to payment of interest as well. I am of opinion that as and when judicial proceedings are instituted against w.p.c.37389/10 3 the petitioner, the petitioner is perfectly free to prove his innocence in those proceedings without which the Government cannot recover the amounts from the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of holding that in the judicial proceedings to be initiated pursuant to Ext.P5, it would be open to the petitioner to prove his innocence and prove that he is not liable to make good the alleged loss caused to the Government. I also direct that without a decree in judicial proceedings authorising recovery from the petitioner as contemplated in Ext.P5, the amounts shall not be recovered from the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge