IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 24 of 2003(C) -------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P. KRISHNAN KUTTY NAIR, T.C.2/1076, CHERUVILAKATHU VEEDU, PAZHAYA ROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., TRIVANDRUM. ADDL.P2. SAROJINI AMMA @ BABY SAROJAM W/O. LATE KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT TC 2/1076, CHARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, PRRA NO.60, PAZHAYA ROAD, TRIVANDRUM MEDICAL COLLEGE POST, TRIVANDRUM. (ADDL. P2 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT. 10/1/08 IN IA 55/08) BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FIN.) DEPT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT TEXT BOOK DEPOT OFFICER, DISTRICT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. MOHAMMED FAIZEL THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.24/2003/C ORDER ON CMP NO.29/2003 IN OP NO.24/2003 DISMISSED Sd/- 10.1.2008. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3O-5-1986 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7-11-90 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT . EXT. P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9-4-1991 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11-5-1989 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATE 23-2-1996 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-5-2002 ISSUED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO INITIATE R.R.PROCEEDINGS. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= O.P. No. 24 of 2003 (C) ======================= Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner retired from service as a store keeper of the District Text book Depot, Trivandrum on 30.4.1983. On 4.6.1983, the petitioner was served with a memo of charges alleging certain irregularities in the maintenance of the accounts of the store. Thereafter, by letter dated 30-5-1986 i.e. after a period of three years of his retirement the petitioner was intimated that the petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs.49,635.65 which is quantified as the liability of the petitioner for deficit in stock of books and the petitioner should send a letter of consent for adjustment of the amount from the gratuity and other retirement benefits due to him. The petitioner has not yet been sanctioned the retirement benefits except the provisional pension. In the meanwhile, by Ext.P6, the petitioner was intimated that the matter was referred to the District Collector for recovery of an amount of Rs.40,180.65 for the O.P. No. 24/2003/C -2- amount due from the petitioner after adjusting his gratuity of Rs.9,445/- out of the liability of Rs.49,635.65. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order and also seeking a direction to respondents to disburse his retirement benefits with interest. 2. Although the original petition was filed as early as on 2.1.2003, counter affidavit was filed only on 7.1.2008 i.e, after the case came up in the hearing list. That counter affidavit is as vague as vague can be. Nothing is positively stated therein to the effect that the so called liability was fixed on the petitioner after notice to the petitioner. Further there is no answer to the contention of the petitioner that the liability was fixed after the limitation period of three years stipulated in Rule 3 of Part III of the KSR was over. Although it is stated that physical verification of inspection was conducted on 22.1.1983 in the petitioner's presence and the petitioner has agreed to the stock balance, no document whatsoever has been brought before me in support of this contention in the counter affidavit. In any event, it is not disputed that the petitioner was informed about the liability after three years of his retirement, by Ext.P1. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the proposed recovery is O.P. No. 24/2003/C -3- against the provisions of Rule 3 of Part III of the KSR and therefore unsustainable and unjust. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is quashed and the respondents are directed to disburse the retirement benefits due to the petitioner in full without any deduction within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner pressed for interest on the retirement benefits which I am not inclined to consider in this original petition. However, the question of interest is left open to be agitated by the petitioner in appropriate other proceedings, if the petitioner is so advised. The original petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp