Partly allowed

K.G.Prakash v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Dec 2012WP(C)/4658/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought sanction of pensionary benefits delayed due to pending disciplinary proceedings and missing documents. The Court regularized the suspension period, directed the municipalities to correct service records and forward files, and ordered the authority to sanction and disburse benefits within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Director to regularize suspension period and submit service book; 3rd Respondent to forward file to Deputy Director; 2nd Respondent to sanction and disburse pension within timelines.

K.G.Prakash 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

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/26TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 4658 of 2012 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.G.PRAKASH, AGED 56, S/O. GOVINDAN, KEECHERIPARAMBIL HOUSE WEST VENGOLA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR-683 556.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT (ANNEX), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01.

¶12

3. THE SECRETARY KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, KALAMASSERY P.O. ERNAKULAM-683104.

¶13

Addl.4. GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GURUVAYOOR.P.O. - 680 101, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

(ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/07/2012 IN

¶15

IA 9291/2012).

¶16

BY ADV. M.K.ABOOBACKER BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR BY ADV. SRI. T.R. RAJESH - GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 4658 of 2012 (F)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1:	COPY OF RELIEVING ORDER CUM PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31.3.2011.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF FORWARDING LETTER NO.G1/10317/11 SENT BY R3 TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, KAKKANAD.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 7.2.2012 UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF R3.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.185/2002/FIN. DATED 27-3-2002 ISSUED BY R1.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.77/2011 FINANCE DATED 2.11.2011.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF NOTICE NO.G1-3560/06 DATED 14.9.2012.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 9.10.2012 WITH DOCUMENT DATED 26.4.1994.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶23

4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶24

EXT.R4(a):	COPY OF LETTER NO.G1-356/06 DATED 30.6.2012 ISUED
	TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.R4(b):	COPY OF LETTER NO.G1-356/06 DATED 30.6.2012 ISSUED
	TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

3RD RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶26

EXT.R3(a):	COPY OF	LETTER OF THE	3RD RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR
	OF MUNIC	IPALITIES DATE	D 6.7.2012.
EXT.R3(b):	COPY OF 14.8.201	COMMUNICATION 2.	TO THE ADDITIONAL R4 DATED

TRUE COPY

PA TO JUDGE.

acd

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶31

¶32

W.P.(c) No. 4658 OF 2012

¶33

- - - - Dated this the 17^th day of December , 2012

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner, who was serving the third respondent Municipality as

¶36

Health Inspector Grade I retired from the service on 31/03/2011, on attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the non-sanctioning and disbursing of pensionary benefits

¶37

payable.

¶38

The case of the petitioner is that, he had submitted the pension book and such other records for enabling him to obtain the pensionary benefits as early as on 27.03.2010. But the proceedings were never forwarded to the Local Fund Director's office on time and on enquiry, it was revealed that the same was forwarded to the office of the Deputy Director of Local Fund along with covering letter only on 3.2.2012. The factual position in this regard stands confirmed as per Ext.P3 information furnished to the petitioner's wife under the RTI Act. It is stated that, there

¶39

was no departmental, Vigilance or judicial proceedings pending against the petitioner at any point of time, to have resulted any delay in sanctioning

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 4658 OF 2012 2

¶41

and disbursing the pensionary benefits.

¶42

The third respondent Municipality has filed a statement dated 28.6.2012 followed by an additional statement dated 15.10.2012. The stand taken by the Municipality is that, the proceedings submitted by the petitioner were defective, mainly for the reason that some of the papers were not signed by the petitioner. It was only after the repeated requests, that he came to the office, cured the defects and thereafter the proceedings were forwarded to the office of the Deputy Director of Local Funds for further steps. Pursuant to the steps taken in this regard, it was informed from the office of the Deputy Director, Local Fund that, as per the records, the petitioner, while serving the Guruvayoor Municipality happened to be placed under suspension; but the service book did not reveal how the suspension period was treated. It was in the said circumstance, that the pension papers were returned to the third respondent, who in turn returned the same to the Guruvayoor Municipality for making necessary entries and to retransmit the file. It is stated that, the Guruvayoor Municipality returned the file without actually curing the defects and the same happened to be forwarded to the third respondent for further steps.

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 4658 OF 2012 3

¶44

The Guruvayoor Municipality has been impleaded as the additional fourth respondent, who has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that, there was some disciplinary action against the petitioner in connection with the missing of some title deeds way back in the year 2005-06, when he was working in the said Municipality as Health Inspector Grade II. In the course of implementation of 'VAMBAY' Scheme, the petitioner was entrusted with 28 title deeds of economically backward persons. But later, the petitioner misplaced the title deeds, leading to his suspension from the service, pending enquiry, as per order dated 13.1.2006. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 21.01.2006, for which he submitted the explanation on 8.2.2006. It is stated that, the petitioner was later reinstated in service on 15.2.2006. After considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the matter was entrusted with the Municipal Engineer to conduct an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 3.4.2006 finding that the title deeds were irrecoverably lost and the petitioner was solely responsible for the same, though there was nothing wilful in this regard. It was suggested by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner might be directed to produce

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 4658 OF 2012 4

¶46

certified copies of the title deeds, which proposal was accepted by the Guruvayoor Municipality, who, by letter dated 14.6.2006 directed the petitioner to produce certified copies of the missing 28 title deeds at his expense. The fourth respondent points out that, on 30.12.2009, the petitioner produced certified copies of 22 title deeds. Later, certified copies of 'five' more title deeds were produced on 21.07.2011 and 27.10.2011. Since 'two' more title deeds were required to be produced by the petitioner, he was informed the position vide Ext.R4(a ) letter dated 30.06.2012 in relation to the title deed of one Kantaru, Puthampally and Narayanan Palackaparambil. It was in the meanwhile, that the third respondent informed the fourth respondent vide letter dated 19.06.2012 that the suspension period was not regularised and further steps were required to be pursued. Since the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the year 2006 were not finalised so far, the additional fourth respondent vide Ext.R4(b) letter dated 30.06.2012 sought for further orders from the second respondent in this regard and that the matter is still pending before the second respondent.

¶47

The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit referring to the

¶48

W.P.(C) No. 4658 OF 2012 5

¶49

sequence of events, particularly in respect of the suspension of the petitioner and such other connected aspects. Referring to the mandate of Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Municipality (Employees Death-Cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules 1996, it is stated that the pensionary benefits of a retired employee are to be sanctioned on the basis of the verification report furnished by the Director of Local Fund Audit. But the verification report in respect of the petitioner is still to be forwarded in view of the defects as mentioned therein. It is also stated that the Guruvayoor Municipality has not informed anything as to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings when the pension proposal was forwarded to the 2^nd respondent. It is however, added therein that the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner will be sanctioned soon after receiving the verification report from the Director of Local Fund Audit after completing the necessary procedural formalities.

¶50

The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit pointing out that there is absolutely no basis for the stand now taken by the 4^th respondent, particularly with reference to Ext. R4(a) dated 30.06.2012. It is stated that, one of the two remaining missing documents stated as produced by

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 4658 OF 2012 6

¶52

Kandaru was in fact a document produced by him in respect of the title deed of his mother-in-law and the same was admittedly returned as borne by paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit. Even otherwise, the notice issued to the petitioner only refers to the missing of '28' title deeds. Certified copies of the 22 title deeds were admittedly produced on 30.12.2009 and certified copies of 5 other title deeds were produced on 21.07.2011 and 27.10.2011, thus taking this total to '27'. As such, the remaining instance can only be in respect of 'one title deed. With regard to this, the specific case of the petitioner as pleaded in paragraph 4 of the reply affidavit is that, the original title deed of Narayanan Palackaparambil was actually returned to the person concerned and he had produced the same before the Guruvayoor Service Co-operative Bank on 16.12.2006 for availing some financial support. This is ought to be substantiated by producing copy of the relevant title deed as Ext. P7, wherein an endorsement has been made by the Guruvayoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited, to the effect that the property was mortgaged to the said Bank on 16.12.2006 as per relevant document registered before the Sub Registrar's Office, Chavakkad on 16.12.2006. This being the position, there cannot be any further liability

¶53

W.P.(C) No. 4658 OF 2012 7

¶54

for the petitioner to satisfy the title deed or its certified copy.

¶55

The factual position narrated above reveals that the issue as to the missing of the title deeds at the hands of the petitioner stands concluded by virtue of the enquiry and the report thereon. After arriving at the finding that the missing was not wilful, it appears that the Guruvayoor Municipality has decided to be satisfied with production of certified copies of title deeds at the cost of the petitioner, which requirement now stands satisfied. As such, there cannot be any more disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in this regard. True, the petitioner came to be suspended from the service on 13.01.2006 and continued on suspension till he was reinstated on 14.02.2006. As no further proceedings are liable to be pursued in this regard, the suspension period requires to be regularised, so as to enable the petitioner to have the pensionary benefits.

¶56

With regard to the alleged delay, this Court finds that, though the petitioner was served with the letter as early as in the year 2006 to produce certified copies of the missing title deeds, they were produced by the petitioner only on 30.12.2009, 21.07.2011 and 27.10.2011. As it stands so, it is not open for the petitioner to insinuate the concerned

¶57

W.P.(C) No. 4658 OF 2012 8

¶58

respondents for not finalising the proceedings, in respect of the suspension or disciplinary proceedings taken against him and in forwarding the pension papers. As on date, the service book of the petitioner is at the hands of the 4^th respondent for effecting necessary entries with regard to the period of suspension.

¶59

In the above circumstances, the 4^th respondent is directed to make necessary entries in the service book of petitioner regularising the period of suspension by passing appropriate orders and the service book along with such other records shall be forwarded to the 3^rd respondent forthwith, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the proceedings as above, it shall be transferred by the 3^rd respondent to the Office of the Deputy Director of Local Funds and after completing the procedural formalities in this regard, the verification report shall be submitted along with all the relevant documents to the 2^nd respondent, at earliest, at any rate, within one month thereafter. On receipt of the proceedings as above, orders sanctioning the pensionary benefits shall be passed by the 2^nd respondent within one month thereafter and the same shall be cause to be disbursed within two

¶60

W.P.(C) No. 4658 OF 2012 9

¶61

months thereafter.

¶62

The writ petition stands allowed to some extent. Claim for interest is

¶63

rejected.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,

¶66

JUDGE

¶67

K.G.Prakash v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G.Prakash 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

Neena Mathai Vs the Corporate Educational Agency

K. Chandran Vs Alappuzha Municipality

Malini.v.K. Vs State of Kerala and Others

K.E.Appukuttan Vs Guruvayoor Devaswam

K. Narayanan Vs Guruvayoor Devaswom

Sheena M. Mathew Vs the State of Kerala