Allowed

Dr.Joseph James v. Cochin University of Science and Technology

Kerala HC15 Nov 2016WP(C)/10786/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a university order directing recovery of Rs. 1,09,648/- from a retired Deputy Director's deposits. The High Court set aside this recovery order, applying the Supreme Court decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih which prohibits recovery after retirement.

What did the court decide?

The recovery order (Exhibit P9) directing payment of Rs. 1,09,648/- is set aside, and the amount recovered from the petitioner's DCRG must be released forthwith within three months.

Dr.Joseph James Vs Cochin University of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/24TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10786 of 2013 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

DR.JOSEPH JAMES, S/O.LATE JAMES JOSEPH,AGED 64 YEARS, MNRA 108A, MAVELI NAGAR, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., KOCHI-33.

¶8

BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O.,

¶11

KOCHI -682 022.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA,

¶13

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

¶15

COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI-682 022.

¶16

R1 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN D.G., SC,

¶17

SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RAJI T. BHASKAR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

WP(C).No. 10786 of 2013 (W)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSITY DATED 2.11.1998. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PROMOTING THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER, DATED 7.9.2009. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE FINANCE OFFICER DATED 29.9.2009. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NON-LIABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 24.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION AGAINST EXHIBIT-P5 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 18.2.2010. EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 23.11.2001. EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT W.P.(C) 8768/10 DATED 29.11.2012. EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT-P10: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FORWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXHIBIT R1(A): COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT DATED 12/8/2008 EXHIBIT R1(B): COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE FINANCE OFFICER DATED 20/2/2009

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶30

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No.10786 of 2013

¶31

Dated this the 15^th November, 2016

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P9 order issued by the University upholding the recovery of an amount of Rs.1,06,578/- from the petitioner which was ordered as per Exhibit P4 order dated 29.9.2009. Exhibit P5 liability certificate issued to the petitioner is also under challenge.

¶34

It is submitted that the petitioner retired from service as Deputy Director of Physical Education on 30.4.2008. His pension papers were cleared by the Local Fund Audit and Exhibit P3 order authorising payment of retirement benefits was issued on 7.9.2009. However, by Exhibit P4 order dated 29.9.2009 it was stated that the pay fixation with effect from 1.1.1996 was erroneous and the advance increment granted from June, 1990 on acquiring M.Phil degree and the stagnation increments granted with effect from March, 2006 were disallowed. It was further stated that as per UGC Norms, those who acquire M.Phil while in service can be given only the relaxation of one year for placement and not eligible for one advance increment. It was therefore directed that an amount of Rs.1,06,528/- be recovered from the petitioner's DCRG. Exhibit P5 liability certificate dated 24.11.2009 was also subsequently issued ordering recovery of an amount of Rs.1,71,640/- from the petitioner's DCRG.

¶35

¶36

WP(C).10786/13

¶37

The petitioner had submitted representations against such recovery. By Exhibit P8 judgment, this Court directed to dispose of the representation within six weeks. Exhibit P9 order dated 26.2.2013 has been rendered upholding the recovery of an excess amount of Rs.1,09,648/- and rejecting the petitioner's representation. The petitioner contends that whatever be the merits of the objections raised, the amounts paid on the strength of orders with authority could not have been recovered from him after his retirement in view of the clear findings and directions contained in the decision of the Apex Court reported in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [(2015)4 SCC 334].

¶38

Exhibit P9, to the extent it orders recovery of amounts from the petitioner is invalid and unsustainable in view of the specific findings contained in paragraphs 16 and 18 of the decision in Rafiq Masih's case (supra). Exhibit P9 to the extent it orders recovery of Rs.1,09,648/- is therefore set aside. The respondents are directed to release such amount, which were recovered from the petitioner's DCRG, to him forthwith, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶40

vgs16/11

¶41

ANU SIVARAMAN

Dr.Joseph James v. Cochin University of Science and Technology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Joseph James v. Cochin University of Science and Technology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayan Nair Vs State of Kerala and Others

Havvaumma K.V. Vs State of Kerala

P.Balarajan Nambiar Vs Union of India

Babu.M. Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Maroli Vs State of Kerala

Kamco Officers Association Vs State of Kerala