Allowed

K.R.Varghese v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Mar 2018WP(C)/2060/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired headmaster, challenged the unauthorised withholding of his pensionary benefits. The court held that since no case was pending against him in any court or vigilance tribunal, his retirement benefits could not be withheld in the interest of time and shall be disbursed. The respondents were directed to make the payment within three months.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to disburse the pensionary benefits, including DCRG and commuted value of pension, due to the petitioner within a period of three months.

K.R.Varghese Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 2060 of 2016

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

K.R. VARGHESE, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.K.T. RAPHEAL, RETD. HEAD MASTER, ST. JOSEPH'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THALASSERY, RESIDING AT KANNANAIKKAL HOUSE, CONVENT ROAD, MATTAM P.O., TRICHUR - 680 602.

¶8

BY SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, SENIOR ADVOCATE.

¶9

ADVS. SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS, SRI.T.T.RAKESH.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶12

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670 001.

¶13

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 101.

¶14

4. THE MANAGER,

¶15

ST. JOSEPH'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THALASSERY, PIN - 670 101.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.RON BASTIAN.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rs. 23/03/2018.

¶19

WP(C).No. 2060 of 2016 (F)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P-1:	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 20.06.2014 IN W.P.(C)NO. 15551/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P-2:	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.4167/2014, G.EDN. DATED 15.10.2014
EXT.P-3:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.03.2015 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-4:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.03.2015.
EXT.P-5:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.01.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-6:	TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P-7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C1-14162/2015 DATED 04/04/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.R2A	COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 30/12/2002.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

23/03/2018.

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C) No.2060 of 2016

¶31

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2018

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner, who retired from service as a Headmmaster on 30.04.2015, had filed this writ petition aggrieved by the delay in disbursing his pensionary benefits.

¶34

The petitioner submits that a private complaint was filed against him by one Sri.V.Ravindran, the former Headmaster of the 4^th respondent school alleging that petitioner and another former Headmaster of the school committed certain irregularities and misappropriation with respect to the PTA fund. According to the petitioner, Sri.Ravindran had availed several loans with the help of the staff members of the school who stood as sureties. Petitioner as well as the other Headmaster were receiving requests for recovery of the loan amount from the salary of the staff concerned from the financial institutions from which he had availed loan; Sri.Ravidran became inimical towards petitioner in the above back ground. He had submitted a complaint against the petitioner for investigation by Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. Even though a report was submitted before the Court after prilminary enquiry, the same was rejected and thereafter an FIR was registered against the petitioner

¶35

W.P.(C) No.2060/16

¶36

:2:

¶37

for offences under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409 and 420 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner submits that based on recommendation of Government as per order dated 09.06.2014, petitioner was placed under suspension. The order of suspension was set aside by Ext.P1 judgment dated 19.06.2014 seeing that Government had not intimated the Manager regarding the circumstances requiring initiation of disciplinary action. This Court had made it clear that the judgment would not stand in the way of Government in proceeding under Section 12A of the Kerala Education Act. Thereafter, Government issued Ext.P2 order directing the Manager to take action against the petitioner under Section 12A of Kerala Education Act. However, no action was taken. Petitioner submits that the Manager had, after receipt of Ext.P2 order directed the petitioner to go on leave and accordingly, petitioner continued on leave till 26.03.2015.

¶38

The petitioner applied for commuted leave from 26.3.2015 to 30.4.2015 till the date of retirement. The petitioner submits that even though no disciplinary action was initiated against him and there was no further proceedings on the basis of the FIR registered against him, the retirement benefits are not so far disbursed to him.

¶39

The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that

¶40

W.P.(C) No.2060/16

¶41

:3:

¶42

Government had issued order on 15.10.2014 requesting the Manager to place the petitioner under suspension till finalization of the enquiry of the vigilance Department. But the Manager did not suspend the petitioner but suggested that the petitioner would be transferred to another District or the petitioner would be asked to enter on compulsory leave till retirement. Accordingly it is stated that the petitioner remained on leave from 26.3.2015 to 30.4.2015. The counter affidavit does not refer to any further proceedings initiated by the Vigilance Department. It is stated that direction was issued to take action against the petitioner in connection with an enquiry report regarding misappropriation of PTA funds of the School during the period from 2009 to 2013. The respondents also relied on Ext.R2(a) letter saying that employees, against whom cases or enquiry are pending before the Court or Vigilance Department, are eligible only for provisional pension. Therefore petitioner can be paid only provisional pension which is being paid.

¶43

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

¶44

learned Government Pleader. Ext.R2(a) order reads as follows:

¶45

As per the G. O. read above. Government have issued specific directions for the speedy settlement of pensionary claims in pending cases of departmental action. Vigilance enquiry, delays due to audit objection, etc.

¶46

A doubt has been raised regarding the applicability of the orders contained in this G. O. in cases which are pending before the Vigilance Courts/Vigiiance Tribunals or

W.P.(C) No.2060/16

:4:

other Courts.

Government have examined the matter in detail and clarify that the cases which are pending before the Courts/Vigiiance Tribunals'Vigilance Courts do not come under the purview of the G. O. dated 27-3-2002. The pensionary benefits of employees, against whom cases are pending before Judiciary can be finally settled only after the disposal of the cases, because one cannot certify that the service of the employee was satisfactory, before the final judgment is pronounced. Only provisional pension can be sanctioned in such cases.

¶51

Respondents do not have a case that any case is pending before the judiciary against the petitioner. Respondents have not also stated that there is any case pending against the petitioner before any of the Court or Vigilance Tribunal or Vigilance Court. Therefore Ext.R2(a) is in favour of the petitioner, according to which there cannot be any objection to disburse pensionary benefits to the petitioner when there is no case is pending against him. Respondents do not have a case that petitioner has caused any loss and that such a loss is determined with notice to him.

¶52

In the above circumstances, I find that the retirement benefits due to the petitioner are not liable to be withheld any more. If at all it is in case an enquiry or trial is held in Vigilance Court or Tribunal and petitioner is found guilty, it is up to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as provided in part III of KSR or to resort to any civil remedies if necessary.

¶53

W.P.(C) No.2060/16

¶54

:5:

¶55

Respondents are therefore directed to disburse the pensionary benefits including DCRG and commuted value of pension, due to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶56

sd/-

¶57

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶58

ww/rkc

K.R.Varghese v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R.Varghese 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnakumar.K Vs Union of India

Jeslin S. Chungath Vs State Bank of India

Dr.K.a.Retheesh Vs State of Kerala

Sheeja Kumary Vs Dr.S.Pradeep Kumar

Antony.G Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Sreekumar.S.T Vs State of Kerala