Dismissed

State of Kerala v. Srikrishna Aggithaya K

Kerala HC12 Apr 2018OP(KAT)/164/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an original petition filed by the State of Kerala, upholding the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's direction that the respondent is entitled to 9% per annum interest on his withheld Death Cum Retirement Gratuity, as it was retained without valid reason.

What did the court decide?

The High Court confirmed the direction that the respondent is entitled to interest at 9% per annum on the entire amount of DCRG withheld by the petitioners without justification.

State of Kerala Vs Srikrishna Aggithaya K — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶3

& THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 1255/2015 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN O.A

¶7

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶8

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT (ANNEX), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 001.

¶9

2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 014.

¶10

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGAR P.O., KASARAGOD, KERALA - 671 121.

¶11

4 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI A J VARGHESE

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT IN O.A:

¶14

SRIKRISHNA AGGITHAYA K AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNA RAO (LATE), RETIRED DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARAGOD, BEHIND BUS STAND, KOTTACHERY, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD, KERALA - 671 315.

¶15

R BY SRI.MURALI PALLATH

¶16

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

kkj

¶18

OP(KAT).No. 164 of 2018 (Z)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO. 1255/2015 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A1 TO A5(A) AND MA1 TO MA7 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 13.08.15 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 02.08.2017 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

// TRUE COPY //

PA TO JUDGE

K.SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ.

¶27

O.P.(KAT) No. 164 of 2018

¶28

Dated this the 12^th day of April, 2018

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

Surendra Mohan, J.

¶31

The State is before us, aggrieved by an order dated 02.08.2017 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (KAT for short) in O.A.No.1255 of 2015. The respondent had filed the Original Application claiming disbursement of his Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG for short).

¶32

The respondent had retired as the Deputy Director of Education, Kasargod on 31.07.2013. However, the DCRG payable to him was not disbursed. Therefore, he approached the KAT seeking the issue of appropriate directions. According to him, an amount of Rupees seven lakhs had been admitted as his DCRG as per order dated 07.04.2014. He had also executed a bond for the purpose of securing any liability that may be fastened on him. In spite of the above, the amount was not disbursed.

¶33

-:2:-

¶34

O.P.(KAT) No. 164 of 2018

¶35

It appears that the KAT had passed an interim order directing payment of 90% of the amount of DCRG. Accordingly as per order dated 31.07.2015, an amount of ₹6,30,000/- was ordered to be released. It is stated that the respondent received the said amount on 17.11.2015. Even at that time, an amount of 70,000/- was retained by the₹ authorities. It was later on found that, there was no liability on the respondent. In view of the above, the KAT has allowed the Original Application directing the State to pay interest on the entire amount of DCRG. The State is aggrieved by the said direction.

¶36

According to the learned Government Pleader, it was incumbent on the respondent to have made available all the records relating to the conduct of a youth festival, when he was in office. Proper documents have not been found in respect of an amount of Rs.69,765/- and therefore, the said amount had been provisionally fixed as liability on him. It was for securing the said amount that a portion of the

¶37

-:3:-

¶38

O.P.(KAT) No. 164 of 2018

¶39

DCRG was retained by the petitioners. It is contended that the said action cannot be found fault with. Though the major portion of the DCRG was released in the year 2015, interest has been ordered to be paid on the said amount, which is in excess of the jurisdiction available to the KAT. We have heard Advocate Murali Pallath who appears for the respondent also.

¶40

We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions advanced before us. Though the respondent had retired from service on 31.07.2013, the fact remains that he was not paid his DCRG within a period of three months, which is the reasonable period of time within which the retirement benefits of an employee ought to be disbursed to him. It has to be borne in mind that, retirement benefits can be retained by the authorities only on justifiable reasons. In the present case, the entire amount of DCRG was withheld without any valid reason for doing so. The only contention put forward is that, proper

¶41

-:4:-

¶42

O.P.(KAT) No. 164 of 2018

¶43

documents could not be found to support an expenditure of ₹69,765/-. If that be so, 90% of the DCRG amount could have been disbursed to the respondent within three months of his retirement. That was not done.

¶44

After waiting for two years, in the year 2015, the respondent had to approach the KAT by filing the Original Application from which this Original Petition arises. It was only pursuant to an interim order passed by the KAT in the said case, that the amount of 6,30,000/- was disbursed to₹ the respondent. However, the balance amount of 70,000/-₹ was still retained. According to the counsel for the respondent, the amount of 6,30,000/- had not been₹ disbursed to his client though a bond had been executed by him in the year 2014 itself. In the end, we are told that absolutely no liability has been fastened on the respondent. Therefore, it is clear that the DCRG of the respondent was withheld, without any justification. It is not possible to ascertain or quantify the loss that has been caused to the

¶45

-:5:-

¶46

O.P.(KAT) No. 164 of 2018

¶47

respondent by the delay in disbursing his DCRG. However, it cannot be disputed that he has been denied the bank interest which he would have earned, had he deposited the DCRG amount in a bank. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that, the amount was being withheld anticipating that there would be liability in his name. However, such anticipation also ought to have been on the basis of proper materials and justification. We do not find any material in the present case to warrant a conclusion that any liability was being contemplated in the name of the respondent. It therefore follows that, the DCRG of the respondent was withheld, without any justification. Assuming that, it was an error on the part of the authorities, the consequence thereof should not burden the retired employee with financial loss. If the petitioners are of opinion that the DCRG was withheld due to laches on part of any of its employees, they shall be at liberty to fix liability on the persons who were responsible and to recover

¶48

-:6:-

¶49

O.P.(KAT) No. 164 of 2018

¶50

the loss from them. We confirm the direction of the KAT that the respondent is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire amount of DCRG withheld by the petitioners without any justification.

¶51

For the foregoing reasons, this Original Petition is dismissed.

¶52

K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶53

ANNIE JOHN JUDGE

¶54

kkj

State of Kerala v. Srikrishna Aggithaya K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Srikrishna Aggithaya K

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

Dr.Anoop Balan Vs the Director and Hod Centre for Marine Living Resource & Ecology

P.K. Devaraj Vs Union of India

Fausia Hassan Vs State of Kerala

Benoy K. Paulose Vs Union of India

Lovely K. Mathew Vs the Commissioner

Sunil S.S Vs Kerala Public Service Commission