Quashed

The Executive Engineer v. T.K.Jayachandran

Kerala HC12 Nov 2009WP(C)/15458/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Ernakulam, quashed the Lok Ayukta order that prohibited the recovery of excess pay from the respondent's deferred compensation gratuity. Acknowledging final quantification of the excess pay, the court directed the payment of balance DCRG along with 9% interest.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the part of Ext.P4 order holding Rs.28,738/- cannot be recovered. Directed payment of balance DCRG along with 9% interest.

The Executive Engineer Vs T.K.Jayachandran — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931

¶4

WP(C).No. 15458 of 2009(B) --------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S): --------------THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM.

¶6

BY ADV. SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶8

T.K.JAYACHANDRAN, KARIYIL HOUSE, POOVAR ROAD, NEYYATTINKARA. PIN-695121.

¶9

ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI FOR R1

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

APPENDIX

¶12

Ext.P1. True copy of the pension payment order.

¶13

Ext.P2. True copy of the judgment dt. 2.6.1997 in O.P.No.6410/1997 Ext.P3. True copy of the judgment dt. 27.9.1999 in O.P.No.20560/1999 Ext.P4. True copy of the Order dt.23.4.2009.

¶14

// true copy //

¶15

P.A to judge.

¶16

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶17

--------------------------------------------------

¶18

W.P.(C) NO.15458 OF 2009 (8)

¶19

--------------------------------------------------

¶20

Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2009

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Respondent retired from PWD as Assistant Engineer on 30.4.1995. Ext.P1 is the order of the Accountant General sanctioning pension to the respondent, from which it is seen that from 14.9.1988, respondent had drawn excess pay and it contains an order that excess pay drawn from 14.9.88 is to be recovered.

¶23

Due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, terminal benefits were not disbursed and that lead the respondent to file an Original petition before this court. That Original petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment dated 2.7.1997 directing that the disciplinary enquiry be completed within 3 months. Enquiry was completed and the Chief Engineer fixed the liability at Rs.16319/- on the respondent. That was challenged before this court again in O.P.NO. 20560/99. That Original petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment directing the disbursement of the amounts due to the respondent after deducting the liability.

¶24

WPC..NO.15458 /09

¶25

:2 :

¶26

Thereafter, complaining that full DCRG was not released respondent filed complaint No.264/08 before the Lok Ayukta. In that proceedings Lok Ayukta passed Ext.P4 order. Before the Lok Ayukta the petitioner herein filed a statement contending that an amount of Rs.16,319/- was to be recovered from the respondent towards its liability and that Rs.28,738/- was to be recovered from the respondent towards excess pay drawn by him as mentioned in Ext.P1 order of the Accountant General. However, Lok Ayukta held that it was not permissible to recover Rs.28,738/- and directed that the DCRG payable to the respondent shall be disbursed as directed in Ext.P3 judgment together with 9% interest thereon. It is challenging Ext.P4 order that the writ petition is filed.

¶27

Learned Government Pleader contended that in Ext.P1 order of the Accountant General issued on 17.7.1995 itself it was ordered that excess pay drawn by the respondent from 14.9.88 is to be recovered. It is stated that this order was never under challenge. Therefore the Government is entitled to recover this amount from the DCRG due to the respondent. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contended that at any point of time including at the stage when Ext.P3 judgment was rendered

¶28

:3 :

¶29

WPC..NO.15458 /09

¶30

did the petitioner urge a contention that an amount of Rs.28,738/- was liable to be recovered from the DCRG of the respondent. Therefore it is stated that the order passed by the Lok Ayukta holding that the amount cannot be recovered is justified. He also contended that having regard to the long delay in disbursing the amount due to the respondent he is entitled to be paid interest as ordered by the Lok Ayukta.

¶31

I have considered the submissions made.

¶32

Admittedly in Ext.P1, though the exact amount which was

¶33

to be recovered from the respondent was not quantified and mentioned, still it was ordered that excess amount drawn from 14.9.1988 is to be recovered. Subsequently, though the respondent had approached this court and obtained Exts.P2 and P3 judgments, in none of these proceedings the liability that was found to be due from the respondent in Ext.P1 was under challenge. The question of recovery of this amount arose only when disbursing the amount pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment and it was at that stage, the amount was withheld.

¶34

Since Ext.P1 and the findings therein has become final and there is no dispute about the quantification of the amount

¶35

WPC..NO.15458 /09

¶36

:4 :

¶37

that is found to be due from the respondent, in my view, Lok Ayukta was clearly in error in holding that the amount of Rs.28,738/- shall not be recovered from the DCRG of the respondent herein. Therefore, Ext.P4 order of the Lok Ayukta to the extent it held that Rs. 28,738/- cannot be recovered is quashed.

¶38

Therefore the Writ petition is disposed of directing that the balance DCRG if any due to the petitioner shall be paid as directed in Ext.P3 judgment along with 9% interest as ordered in Ext.P4 referred to above.

¶39

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶40

vi/

The Executive Engineer v. T.K.Jayachandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer v. T.K.Jayachandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thulasidas.K.C Vs the Director of Agriculture

E.O.Sebastian and Others Vs Secretary,Irrigation Department and Ors.

Ida Scadar Anslam Vs Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors.

Sivaraman Vs Sureshan Koilerian

Moosan.K.P. and Another Vs Director of Health Serivces and Another

T.M.Vijayan Vs Director of Health Services & Others