Allowed

State of Kerala v. Sugunan v.

Kerala HC15 Mar 2019OP(KAT)/68/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the Tribunal's order granting full retiral benefits. It held that departmental proceedings commenced with suspension, making Rule 3A applicable. The Court directed provisional pension and denied full gratuity until the pending vigilance case concludes.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Original petition allowed. Directing provisional pension, withholding gratuity until vigilance case concludes.

State of Kerala Vs Sugunan v. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶7

OP(KAT).No. 68 of 2017

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03-01-2017 IN O.A.(EKM)NO.353/2016 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BENCH

¶9

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695001.

¶11

2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, OPPOSITE MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695033.

¶12

3 THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY (FINANCE), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695001.

¶13

4 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

BY SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN O.A.:

¶16

SUGUNAN V., S/O.VASU P.K., RTD. SR.SUPERINTENDENT, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, RESIDING AT APPOOSE, KARIKKATHARA, ARYAD NORTH POST, ALAPPUZHA.

¶17

BY SUGUNAN V.(PARTY IN PERSON)

¶18

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN

¶19

FINALLY HEARD ON 13.03.2019, THE COURT ON 15.03.2019

¶20

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(KAT)No.68/2017

“CR”

Judgment

Chitambaresh, J.

1.The respondent while working as an Additional Tahsildar

¶27

was placed under suspension on 26.11.2014 in connection

¶28

with a vigilance trap case following his arrest and detention

¶29

about which there is no dispute. The respondent was reinstated on 28.9.2015 and he retired from service as Senior Superintendent on 30.11.2015 while the final report

¶30

in the vigilance case was filed on 27.12.2016. His plea for disbursement of full retiral benefits on the ground that the cognizance of the criminal case was taken after the date of retirement has met with approval by the Tribunal.

¶31

2.The Senior Government Pleader rightly contends that the

¶32

OP(KAT)No.68/2017

¶33

¶34

departmental proceedings have commenced by the order of

¶35

suspension and therefore the rigour of Rule 3A of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules applies. That statutory provision enables the Government to pay only provisional pension to the respondent and withhold his gratuity until the conclusion of the proceedings. The Senior Government Pleader further submits that departmental proceedings may or may not be continued which would of course depend on

¶36

the criminal proceedings pending in court.

¶37

3.It transpires that the criminal case by the Vigilance and AntiCorruption Bureau as VC6/2014/ALP is still pending on the file of the Vigilance Court, Kottayam and the respondent is

¶38

yet to be given a clean chit. Whether there has been any pecuniary loss to the Government or any part of the pension

¶39

be recovered are matters to be considered after the verdict

¶40

OP(KAT)No.68/2017

¶41

¶42

as per Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. We do not

¶43

think that it will be equitable to direct the Government to

¶44

pay the entire retiral benefits to the respondent even before

¶45

the culmination of the proceedings.

¶46

4.The petitioners have already disbursed the death-cum-

¶47

retirement gratuity to the respondent pursuant to the earlier interim orders though not obliged under Rule 3A of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. The payment of provisional pension to the respondent at this stage cannot be faulted

¶48

with and the Tribunal was not justified in directing disbursement of the entire benefits. Interest of justice would

¶49

be met by directing the Vigilance Court to dispose of

¶50

VC6/2014/ALP at the earliest since a pensioner cannot be kept on tenterhooks for long.

¶51

OP(KAT)No.68/2017

¶52

¶53

5.The impugned order in O.A.(EKM) No.353/2016 is set aside

¶54

and the original petition is allowed. No costs.

¶55

The Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Vigilance Court concerned for expeditious disposal of the

¶56

case referred to supra.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

V. CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE

Sd/A.M. BABU, JUDGE

Sha/130319

OP(KAT)No.68/2017

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶65

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.353/16 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES

¶66

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶67

EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.1.2017 IN O.A.(EKM)NO.353/2016.

¶68

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶69

EXHIBIT R1 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 29.10.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.

¶70

ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.S1.56427/2014 DATED 27.11.2014.

¶71

ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F.B(A)6-49838/15 DATED 29.2.2016.

State of Kerala v. Sugunan v.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Sugunan v.

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

Aneesh Babu R Vs Sherith a

Tomy Joseph Vs Raju K.P.

P.Ajantharaj Vs the State of Kerala

K.J.Babu Vs Union of India

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Savitha John Bosco

V.K.Sujith Vs the Commandant