Dismissed

R.v.Ramanathan v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC12 Oct 2011WP(C)/8393/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order fixing a pension liability of Rs. 1,41,117/- against a retired KSEB employee. The petitioner could not produce documents to substantiate the debits for the relevant periods, and the court held that delay does not excuse failure to comply with statutory dues.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The liability is fixed at Rs. 1,41,117/- plus interest. The Board is directed to adjust the liability from pension arrears and disburse balance benefits to heirs.

R.v.Ramanathan Vs the Kerala State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 8393 of 2006(Y)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

R.V.RAMANATHAN, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RETIRED), SREE GANESH, KUREETHOTTAM VAYALIL, KOTTAKKAKOM WARD, KOLLAM-13.

¶10

*ADDL.P2 TO P4 IMPLEADED:

¶11

P2. R.SATHEESH KUMAR, AMRITHAM, THEVALLY (PO), KOLLAM.

¶12

P3. R.NAGALAKSHMI, AMRITHAM, THEVALLY (PO), KOLLAM.

¶13

P4. R.GIREESH KUMAR, AMRITHAM, THEVELLY (PO), KOLLAM.

¶14

**(ADDL.P2 TO P4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 12/10/2011 IN I.A.NO.15738/2007)*

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN

¶16

RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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

¶18

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) GENERAL, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

Kss

..2/-

..2....

WPC.NO.8393/2006 Y

¶24

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KARUNAGAPPILLY.

¶25

4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM.

¶26

5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KOLLAM.

¶27

6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHITTOOR.

¶28

7. THE F.A. & C.A.O VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶29

R1 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

Kss

¶32

WPC.NO.8393/2006 Y

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB17/86-87/258/28.1.1987.

¶36

P1(A): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AB3/92-93/MASA/280 DTD. 17/04/1993.

¶37

P2: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B3/92-93/174 DTD. 28/10/1995.

¶38

P3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EB1/97-98/178 DTD. 13/05/1997.

¶39

P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EEPS XII/181/97 DTD. 27/11/1997.

¶40

P5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PA.VII/PPO.20518 DTD. 2/12/1997.

¶41

P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT ON 4/07/1997.

¶42

P7: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.ESTT.V-3600/90 DTD. 6/05/1989.

¶43

P8: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.ESST.IV-6888/89 DTD. 24/06/1989. P9: COPY OF THE JUDT. DTD. 8/07/2005. P10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 21/10/2005.

¶44

P11: COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN.

¶45

P12: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AB/2005-06/1116 DTD. 15/12/2005.

¶46

P13: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.LAD-1/11961/05 DTD. 9/01/2006.

¶47

P14: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/01/2006.

¶48

P15: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LAS-1/11961/2005 DTD. 8/02/2006.

Kss

..2/-

...2......

WPC.NO.8393/2006 Y

¶53

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶54

R1(A): COPY OF THE MATERIALS CONSUMPTION STATEMENT (MCS) DEBIT SLIPS NO.12 DTD. NIL.

¶55

R1(B): COPY OF THE MATERIALS CONSUMPTION STATEMENT (MCS) DEBIT SLIPS NO.13 DTD. NIL.

¶56

R1(C): COPY OF THE MATERIALS CONSUMPTION STATEMENT (MCS) DEBIT SLIPS NO.16 DTD. NIL.

¶57

R1(D): COPY OF THE MATERIALS CONSUMPTION STATEMENT (MCS) DEBIT SLIPS NO.17 DTD. NIL.

¶58

R1(E): COPY OF THE MATERIALS CONSUMPTION STATEMENT (MCS) DEBIT SLIPS NO.18 DTD. NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

==================

W.P.(C).No. 8393 of 2006

¶65

==================

¶66

Dated this the 12^th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T

¶67

The 1^st petitioner was given invalid pension as an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board with effect from 21.4.1995. Retirement benefits were not disbursed to him and an amount of Rs.1,41,117/- has been fixed as liability. The 1^st petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P.No. 14716/1998, in which, he obtained Ext.P9 judgment directing consideration of his contention in the light of Ext.P3 recommendation of the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer of the Board. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P15 order has been passed rejecting the claim of the 1^st petitioner on the ground that Ext.P3 relates to MASA for 10/1986 and the liability of Rs.1,41,117/- is in respect of MASA and Debit slips of 11/1986. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P15. The petitioners seek other benefits also. But during the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners confines the petitioners' prayer in respect of the liability of Rs. 1 ,41,117/-. According to the petitioners, Ext.P15 has not been passed in accordance with Ext.P9 judgment. They would submit that in Ext.P9 judgment, this Court had directed to refix the liability in the light of Ext.P3. The petitioners submit that it has not been done.

¶68

The learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board submits that the Board has considered the matter as directed in Ext.P9

¶69

w.p.c.8393/06 - : 2 :-

¶70

judgment and recommendation in Ext.P3 has been accepted for MASA 10/1986 and Ext.P3 does not cover MASA 11/1986, which is imposed as liability on the petitioner for Rs. 1,41,117/-.

¶71

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶72

In Ext.P9, judgment this Court directed as follows:

¶73

“2 ..... There will be a direction to the first/seventh respondent to look into Ext.P3 with notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action to refix the liability in the light of Ext.P3.”

¶74

Ext.P3 reads thus;

¶75

“Sri.R.V.Ramanathan assumed charge as Assistant Engineer in the Electrical Major Section, Chavara on 8/86 and accepted materials from Sri.Ambikavathy Pillai, who was under transfer. The materials for 8/86 & 9/86 were accounted in the MASA and the MASA of 10/86 could not be submitted since he was suffering from mental retardation and on 10/86 itself he was transferred from that office to 110 KV Sub Station Kundara as Operator. Subsequently he obtained a voluntary retirement on 21.4.95. Immediately after his transfer to 110 KV Sub Station, Kundara, the next Assistant Engineer Sri.Nisar Ahammed who assumed charge as Assistant Engineer, Els. Major Section, Chavara, took inventory. The shortage of materials were kept his personal liability. By this time Sri.R.V.Ramanathan has represented to Chairman, Kerala State Electricity Board regarding the liability fixed and now submitted MASA of 10/86 along with debit slips now. On enquiry it is understood that the issue of materials are correct; (sic) As it is a case of 11 years old the debit slip cannot be accepted now and hence I request sanction to take the materials in the MASA account at present considering his pathetic condition.”

¶76

Pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment, Ext.P15 order was passed, wherein the

¶77

claim of the petitioner has been considered as follows:

¶78

'On examination of Ext.P3 letter dated 13.05.1997 of the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Karunagappally, it is revealed that the petitioner had submitted MASA of 10/1986 along with Debit Slips and also found that the issue of materials are correct. But, as it was a case of 11 years old, the Executive Engineer had obtained the sanction of the Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer to take the materials in the MASA (Materials at Site Account) and after adjusting the MASA and Debit Slips for 10/1986, the petitioner's liability was refixed and reduced from Rs. 4,50,365/- to Rs. 1,41,117/-. But the MASA and Debit Slips for 11/86 was not adjusted since the same were not countersigned by the competent authority and the details of the

¶79

w.p.c.8393/06

¶80

: 3 :-

¶81

agencies by whom works were carried out were not mentioned in any of the Debit Slips. Moreover, the remittance details were not furnished to ascertain the authenticity of the Deposit Works. Therefore the petitioner was asked to produce further documents to substantiate the bona fides of the above mentioned aspects and the issue of materials as per Material Consumption Statement for 11/1986. But, he has intimated his inability to produce further documents to substantiate the bona fides of MASA and Debit Slips for 11/1986. The petitioner's reply via-a-vis, (sic) Ext.P3 was examined in detail. In Ext.P3 it is stated that the issue of materials are correct. But, that statement is with regard to the MASA for 10/1986 and it has no bearing on the MASA for 11/986. In the circumstances, there is no merit in any of the contentions made by the petitioner in the reply and the statement in Ext.P3 letter that “on enquiry, it is understood that the issue of materials are correct” has no application on the MASA for 11/1986, since that statement was made with regard to the MASA for 10/1986. Therefore, the reply cannot be accepted. Further since the petitioner did not co-operate with the settlement of his accounts, so as to fix his liability in time and the delay on his part to submit the pension papers in time, the pensionary benefits could not be sanctioned immediately after the retirement. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to interest for the delay in sanctioning the pensionary benefits due to failure on his part to settle the MASA in time.

¶82

In the above circumstances, the petitioner's liability on account of the irregularities in the MASA and Debit Slips for 11/1986 is confirmed and fixed as Rs. 1,41,117/- plus interest.

¶83

The Chief Engineer (HRM) is directed to adjust the above liability from the DCRG and arrears of Dearness Relief on pension of the petitioner and disburse the balance pensionary benefits, if any, due to the petitioner forthwith.'

¶84

As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the Electricity Board, Ext.P3 recommendation relates to MASA No.10/86, whereas the liability confirmed is in respect of MASA and debit slips for 11/1986. In fact, by Ext.P13, this fact has been intimated to the 1^st petitioner with a direction to him to produce appropriate materials for proving his contentions in respect of MASA 11/1986. The 1^st petitioner could not produce materials in respect of the same. It is revealed that the debit slips were not countersigned by the appropriate authority as required by the rules. The same is not

¶85

w.p.c.8393/06 - : 4 :-

¶86

disputed by the petitioners. The only contention raised by the petitioners is that after 11 years, it is impossible for the 1^st petitioner to prove the real facts. When it is not disputed that the debit slips have not been properly raised and the liability relates to the period when the petitioner was in charge, I do not think that the petitioners can raise the contention that after 11 years 1^st petitioner is not in a position to disprove the contentions of the Board. When, admittedly, the 1^st petitioner has not done what he ought to have done under the rules, I do not think that the petitioners can merely say that after 11 years the 1^st petitioner shall not be required to prove his case. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶87

During the pendency of the writ petition, the 1^st petitioner died and his legal heirs have come on record as additional petitioners. If any other retirement benefits are still outstanding to be disbursed to the 1^st petitioner, the same shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the 1^st petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

sdk+

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

w.p.c.8393/06 - : 5 :-

R.v.Ramanathan v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.v.Ramanathan v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Max Meditech Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

C.Viswanathan Vs State of Kerala

Tomy Thomas Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Aarcon International Vs Uco Bank

A.K.Amina Vs State of Kerala

M. Dinesh Vs Kerala Public Service Commission