Partly allowed

S.Sheeladevi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Dec 2012WP(C)/26305/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order requiring her to repay an excess honorarium received while holding additional charge. The Court held the principal excess was justified but, in interest of justice, waived the 12% interest liability. Petitioner allowed only against interest; principal remains recoverable if not paid within 10 days.

What did the court decide?

Waiver of 12% interest liability on excess payment; principal amount recoverable within 10 days.

S.Sheeladevi Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 26305 of 2012 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

S.SHEELADEVI, FINANCE MANAGER, KERALA COIR WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU

¶9

SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. KERALA COIR WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,

¶13

HEAD OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

¶15

PIN-688 001.

¶16

3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

¶17

KERALA COIR WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶18

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT (WELFARE FUND AUDIT), KOLLAM-691 001.

¶19

R1 & R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J,SC,KERALA COIR WORKERS WELARE FUND BOARD

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Kss

¶22

WPC.NO.26305/2012 K

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶25

P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS)NO.261/09/ INDUSTRIES DEPT. DTD.25.2.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

P2 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.4.8.2009 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CWB/A2/2739/11 DTD.16.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L

¶29

/TRUE COPY/

¶30

P.A.TO JUDGE Kss

¶31

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶32

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 26305 of 2012

¶34

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner is challenging Ext. P3, whereby she has been required to pay a sum of Rs.13,153/-, which is stated as the excess amount received by her, including interest, in respect of the service rendered holding additional charge of the Chief Executive of the respondent Board.

¶37

The petitioner was working as the Finance Manager of the respondent Board and while so, she was entrusted with charge of the Chief Executive from 26.12.2008 to 11.08.2009. The said charge arrangement was approved by the first respondent as well as the Government, as borne by Ext. P1 proceedings dated 25.02.2009. In the course of further proceedings, the Board took a decision, as per the resolution dated 04.08.2009, to grant 10 % of the Basic Pay as 'special honorarium' to the petitioner, in respect of the period during which she was holding charge of the Chief Executive and the

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 26305 of 2012

¶39

: 2 :

¶40

amount was accordingly worked out and disbursed to her.

¶41

Later, after assuming the office by the regular Chief Executive, Ext. P3 proceedings dated 16.10.2012 came to be issued to the petitioner, referring to some audit enquiry as to the excess payment and asking the petitioner to repay a sum of Rs.13,153/- (which consists of the principal amount of Rs. 9671/- and interest @ 12 % amounting to Rs.3,483/-), which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶42

The respondents have filed a statement dated 12.11.2012 producing a copy of the audit enquiry [wrongly marked as Exhibit R2(a) in place of Annexure R2(a)] and an additional statement dated 21.11.2012, producing a copy of the 6^th decision of the 138^th Board Meeting held on 01.10.2012 as 'Annexure R2(b)'. The case of the respondent is that, by virtue of the relevant provisions of law, particularly Rule 53 Part I KSR, the petitioner is entitled to have only '7 %' of the basic pay as charge allowance and that too, for a maximum period of 'three' months; whereas the amount ordered to be released to the petitioner as per Ext. P2 is much on the

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 26305 of 2012

¶44

: 3 :

¶45

higher side, which has absolutely no basis at all.

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶47

the amount ordered to be paid to the petitioner by way of Ext. P2 under the head 'special allowance'/'special honorarium' is not wrong or improper and that, it has to be analysed with reference to the definition of the term ' honorarium' as given in Rule 12 (15) read with Rule 49 of Part I KSR. The above Rules are extracted herein for the purpose of convenience of reference.

¶48

15(2) : Honorarium - Means a recurring or nonrecurring payment granted to an Officer from the General Revenues of the State as remuneration for special work of an occasional or intermittent character.

¶49

49 Honoraria - The Government may grant or permit an officer to receive an honorarium as remuneration for work performed which is occasional in character and either so laborious or of such special merit as to justify a special reward. Except when special reasons, which should be recorded in writing exist for a departure from this provision, sanction to the grant or acceptance of an honorarium should not be given unless the work has been

¶50

W.P.(C) No. 26305 of 2012

¶51

: 4 :

¶52

undertaken with the prior consent of the Government and its amount has been settled in advance.

¶53

True, there is a provision for payment of honorarium under Rule 49, but the power in this regard solely vests with the 'Government' and not with the Board. Ext. P2 order has admittedly been passed by the 'Board' and not by the Government. True, presence of a Government nominee was there, when the Board took the decision. But presence of the Government nominee in the meeting will not tilt the balance to brand it as a Government decision under Rule 49 to sustain the benefit ordered as per Ext. P2. It is also borne out by the materials on record, that the mistake crept in was found out only during the course of audit and that, it was pursuant to this audit objection, that the Board considered the matter further and took Annexure R2(b) decision to realize the excess payment with interest @ 12 % and hence Ext. P3. Going by the relevant Rule which enables the petitioner to be remunerated, for holding the additional charge in the given circumstances, can only be to an extent of 7 % of the basic

¶54

W.P.(C) No. 26305 of 2012

¶55

: 5 :

¶56

pay and that too, for a maximum period of 'three months'.

¶57

As such, the amount worked out by the respondents as per Ext. P3 towards the 'principal amount' is perfectly justified.

¶58

But coming to the question, whether the petitioner

¶59

can be mulcted with the liability to pay interest, that too, at the rate of 12 %; it is to be noted that the payment was given to the petitioner based on the decision taken by the Board. It is rather conceded from the part of the Board, that the amount was sought to be realized pursuant to the 'audit objection', issuing Ext. P3. The question is whether the petitioner is to be penalized for the mistake committed by the Board. This Court finds that interest of justice will be met, if the 'principal amount' received by the petitioner by way of excess payment alone be ordered to be repaid by the petitioner and that the amount quantified by way of interest can be spared in the particular facts and circumstances.

¶60

In the above facts and circumstances, the decision of

¶61

the Board that the excess amount drawn shall be recovered from the petitioner is justified and the challenge raised against

¶62

W.P.(C) No. 26305 of 2012

¶63

: 6 :

¶64

Ext. P3 in this regard is repelled. If the principal amount is deposited by the petitioner within '10 days' from the date of receipt a copy of this judgment, it will be treated as full and final satisfaction of the liability, failing which the entire liability now fixed as per Ext. P3 including interest can be recovered from the petitioner, by pursuing appropriate steps. The relief is moulded accordingly.

¶65

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶66

sd/-

¶67

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶68

kmd

S.Sheeladevi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sheeladevi v. State of Kerala

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

Abdul Azeez Vs Sudevan.v.D.

R.Murali Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

V.Anilal Vs the Kollam Corporation

Lonan Ouseph Vs Corporation of Kochi

Kunjachan Vs the Changanassery Municipality, Represented by Its Secretary

K.P. Aleykutty Vs the District Educational Officer, Malappuram