Allowed

G.Gopalaikrishna Pillai v. K.S.R.T.C.

Kerala HC23 May 2014WP(C)/12354/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition and quashed a memorandum directing recovery of excess pay and allowances from a retired sergeant. The court held that post-retirement recovery is unjustified where no objection was raised during the tenure and benefits were disbursed without audit findings.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 Memo quashed; respondents restrained from affecting recovery against the petitioner.

G.Gopalaikrishna Pillai Vs K.S.R.T.C. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2014/2ND JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 12354 of 2005 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, SERGEANT (RETIRED), K.S.R.T.C., REGIONAL WORKSHOP, RESIDING AT SREELEKSHMI NIVAS, MALAMELBHAGOM, KAREELAKULANGARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ANANDARAJAN.N

¶9

SRI.K.K.MANGALANANDAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23.

¶12

2. THE WORKS MANAGER,

¶13

K.S.R.T.C. REGIONAL WORKSHOP, MAVELIKKARA.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.JOY GEORGE, SC, K.S.R.T.C.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 12354 of 2005 (U)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIOINERS' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PA12-028737/04 DATED 29/9/04 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶21

P2: COPY OF THE MEMO NO.E1-1845/04/MVKA DATED 4/11/2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶22

P3: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 11/7/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶23

P4: COPY OF C.O.MEMORANDUM NO.LR9-058948/95 DATED 9/11/1995 ENDORSED ON G1-3210/95/MVKA DATED 15/11/95

¶24

P5: COPY OF CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM NO.OAD1-000019/2002 DATED 10/5/2002

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶26

R1(A): COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.LR9:20336/99 DATED 30/3/2000 RENDERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C)NO.12354 OF 2005

¶33

========================= Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2014

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner retired from the service of the 1^st respondent-Corporation on 30.09.2004, while working as Sergeant at the Regional Workshop, Mavelikkara. After retirement the petitioner was paid with all terminal benefits including monthly pension, as evident from Ext.P1. But on 04.11.2004 the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 Memo, whereby his eligible service period was ordered to be modified stating that 2^nd Saturdays availed as holidays by the petitioner was not in order because he was not eligible to avail such holidays. It is evident from Ext.P2 that 2^nd Saturdays availed by the petitioner from 10.11.2001 to 10.07.2004 was modified as 'Half-Pay Leave' and 'Leave Without Allowance'. Consequently the pay and allowances received by the petitioner was directed to be modified and the excess payments was ordered to be recovered. Eventhough the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 objections, no action was taken by the respondent, to reconsider the action proposed. Under such circumstances the petitioner is approaching this Court seeking to quash Ext.P2.

¶36

W.P.(C)NO.12354 OF 2005 2

¶37

Contention of the petitioner is that the post of Sergeant is a supervisory post and he is the head of the Security branch and sanitary wing at the Regional Workshop. The system of availing holidays on 2^nd Saturdays was practiced in KSRTC for decades together and the petitioner was permitted to avail such holidays. It is further contended that the Leave and Attendance' of the petitioner was subjected to periodic audit and at no point of time it was pointed out that the petitioner is not entitled to avail holidays on 2^nd Saturdays. The 'C.O. Memorandum' referred to in Ext.P2 Memo is produced as Ext.P4. It indicates that 2^nd Saturdays were declared as holidays to the ministerial staff in KSRTC, except to those who are working in shift basis. It is contended by the petitioner that duties of Sergeants were not performed on shift basis and the exemption provided in Ext.P4 is not applicable with respect to Sergeants. It is further contended that the respondents are not entitled to recover the amounts on the basis of the allegations contained in Ext.P2, after the retirement and after disbursal of all the terminal benefits.

¶38

In the counter affidavit it is contended that personell of security wing including Sergeants are placed on shift basis and as per Ext.P4 order such personals are not eligible to avail holiday on 2^nd Saturdays. Contention of the respondents is that, marking of attendance in the register is by the Sergeants themselves and the

¶39

W.P.(C)NO.12354 OF 2005 3

¶40

bills admitted on the basis of preliminary audit which are drawn and disbursed to them are subject to final audit. It is only during the final audit that the objection was noticed. It is contended that the pension and other benefits are disbursed immediately after the retirement only to avoid any hardships to the petitioner, after obtaining undertaking to the effect that he will clear all liabilities if detected on any subsequent situation. Hence it is contended that the petitioner is legally bound to make good the liabilities detected after issuance of pension.

¶41

Both sides have not produced any of the relevant orders which will show the exact position with respect to availing holidays on 2^nd Saturdays by personell in the cadre of Sergeants. Contention of the petitioner is that Sergeant is a post coming within supervisory cadre and they are entitled to avail holidays on 2^nd Saturdays. Per contra, contention of the respondents is that the Sergeant is a post coming within the security wing which works on shift basis and is not entitled to avail holidays on 2^nd Saturdays. Admittedly the petitioner had availed holidays during the entire tenure of his service as Sergeant without any objection and the salary and other benefits were paid after scrutiny (preliminary audit) of the Attendance Register. After retirement the petitioner was paid with all terminal benefits. Now the impugned recovery is proposed only based on an audit objection.

¶42

W.P.(C)NO.12354 OF 2005 4

¶43

It is settled through various precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court that, recovery from a retired employee cannot be made for no mistake of his own. It further remains settled that, mistake if any detected subsequent to the tenure of an employee with respect to pay and allowance paid cannot be recovered in determental to the interest of the employee, long after his retirement.

¶44

Here is a case where the ministerial staff of KSRTC were permitted to avail holidays on 2^nd Saturdays, except in the case of staff on shift basis. No material is produced to show that the post of Sergeant will not fall within the category of ministerial staff. Moreover if there is no materials produced to show that the petitioner was working on shift basis. This Court is of the considered opinion that, it is not justified at this point of time to make any recovery from the benefits already paid to the petitioner, on the basis of Ext.P2 Memo. This is especially because of the fact that at no point of time there was any objection raised against the petitioner availing holidays on 2^nd Saturdays.

¶45

Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P2 is hereby quashed. The respondents are restrained from affecting any recovery against the petitioner on the basis that he had availed holidays on 2^nd Saturdays.

¶46

However, it is made clear that this Court has not made nay

¶47

W.P.(C)NO.12354 OF 2005 5

¶48

declaration to the effect that Sergeants working in KSRTC are entitled to avail holidays on 2^nd Saturdays.

¶49

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

¶50

R.AV

G.Gopalaikrishna Pillai v. K.S.R.T.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Gopalaikrishna Pillai v. K.S.R.T.C.

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

Shiju Vs Dr K P Sreekumar

Justin K.J Vs Smijesh V.M

Daisy Cherian Vs District Collector

Joy Ouseph Vs the Asst. Executive Engineer

Rajan Sheriff I Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

The Kerala State Electricity Board Vs the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum