Court disposed of writ petition directing Kerala Water Authority to disburse admitted retirement benefits within six weeks, noting disciplinary proceedings were dropped. Court rejected claim for interest on delayed payment.
Direction to disburse admitted retiral benefits within six weeks; claim for interest rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/16TH ASWINA, 1935
WP(C).No. 4612 of 2012 (B)
PETITIONER:
K.DAMODARAN KALLANTAVITA HOUSE, MOKERY P.O., PANOOR-670 692 KANNUR DISTRICT (RETIRED HEAD DRAFTSMAN O/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MATTANNUR-670 702).
BY ADVS.SRI.M.C.CHERIAN SRI.M.A.THOMAS KUTTY SMT.SARAMMA CHERIAN SMT.ASHA CHERIAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PUBLIC HEALTH CIRCLE KANNUR-670 012.
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT SUB DIVISION, CHIRAKKARA P.O. THALASSERY-670 104.
R1-R4 BY SRI.JOSEPH JOHN, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 4612 of 2012 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10/7/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALASSERY.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 24/9/2007 ISSUED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALASSERY.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3/10/2007 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.KWA/AO/(Esst)/PEN.6903/2558 DATED 9/2/2010 ISSUED BY THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/10/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.KWA/PHC/CAN 4069/2009/F3 DATED 17/11/2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R7. TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R8. TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.7.2013 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
SKV
C.T.RAVIKUMAR,J
------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.4612 OF 2012
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioner retired from the service of Kerala Water Authority on 31.3.2010 while working as Draftsman. However, his retiral benefits are yet to be paid. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court by filing the captioned Writ Petition with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue Non-liability certificate and authorize payment of DCRG admitted as per Ext.P4 and for consequential reliefs. The contention of the petitioner is that though the retiral benefits were admitted as per Ext.P4, the respondents have withheld the retiral benefits on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. According to the petitioner, at no point of time, a memo of charges was served on him. In other words according to the petitioner, no disciplinary proceeding with notice was initiated against him.
2
W.P.(C). No.4612 OF 2012
that in the light of Ext.P8 order which would reveal the fact that the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were dropped, a direction may be given to the respondents to disburse the retiral benefits. Ext.P8 would further reveal that while the petitioner was in service, crime No.279/2006 was registered under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. Ext.P8 would further reveal that thereafter an enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Cell of the Water Authority and it was found that the petitioner was in no way responsible for the theft and thereupon the Executive Engineer submitted a report to that effect, holding that there occurred no procedural lapse on the part of the petitioner. It was taking note of all such circumstances that it was decided to exonerate the petitioner from all the charges and to drop disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Evidently, as per Ext.P8 it was ordered to exonerate the petitioner from all the charges and to drop all disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
3
W.P.(C). No.4612 OF 2012
Ext.P8 carries a further direction that all the legitimate claims payable to the petitioner be disbursed without any
further delay. The facts thus borne out from Ext.P8 itself would reveal that the contention of the petitioner that the respondents had withheld the retiral benefits without any reason cannot be accepted. Obviously, a crime was registered against the petitioner and subsequently, an enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Cell attached to the Executive Engineer of the Water Authority and the report submitted after such enquiry ultimately lead to the exoneration of the petitioner and consequently dropped the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. As noticed hereinbefore as per Ext.P8 itself it was ordered to disburse the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner without any further delay. Taking into account all such aspects, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents to disburse the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner, admitted as per Ext.P4, and if
4
W.P.(C). No.4612 OF 2012
revised subsequent to the issuance of Ext.P7, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Taking into account the facts expatiated above, it cannot be held that the retiral benefits were withheld without any justification. Immediately when the petitioner was exonerated as per Ext.P8, the order to disburse the retiral benefits was also passed. I am of the view that the petitioner cannot claim interest on the delayed payments in the said circumstances. In such circumstance respondents cannot be saddled with the liability to pay interest.
Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly.
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE.
SKV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents were directed to disburse the non-liability certificate and retirement benefits admitted by them.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to claim interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits.
Whether disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner at the time of the benefit disbursement.
K. Damodaran Kallantavita House
Kerala Water Authority
The Managing Director Kerala Water Authority
The Superintending Engineer Kerala Water Authority
The Assistant Executive Engineer Kerala Water Authority
C.T. Ravikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
