Allowed

Dr.C.K.Geetha, v. Kerala Agricultural University

Kerala HC9 Dec 2019WP(C)/22422/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired professor, challenged the retention of part of her death-cum-retirement gratuity due to non-receipt of government scheme funds. The Court held she is not personally liable for the lack of funds and directed the University to pay the balance amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Directed University to settle balance DCRG within one month, failing which 9% interest applies; Union of India directed to release due funds within two months.

Dr.C.K.Geetha, Vs Kerala Agricultural… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

WP(C).No.22422 OF 2019(C)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.22422 OF 2019(C)

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

DR.C.K.GEETHA, AGED 61 YEARS AATHIRA, PALLAN LANE, THRISSUR EAST, THRISSUR680005. (PROFESSOR AND HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF FLORICULTURE AND LANDSCAPING (RTD.), COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680656).

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAGHUNATHAN SRI.K.JALADHARAN SRI.V.M.JACOB

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VALLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680565.

¶13

2 VICE CHANCELLOR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VALLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680565.

¶14

3 COMPTROLLER, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VALLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680565.

¶15

4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

WP(C).No.22422 OF 2019(C)

¶17

¶18

5 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, GO I, S BLOCK, NASE COMPLEX, DPS MARG, NEW DELHI-110012.

¶19

R1 BY SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY R5 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.22422 OF 2019(C)

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Petitioner retired from the service of the Kerala Agricultural University on 30.11.2017. According to the petitioner, an amount of Rs.14 lakhs was due to the petitioner towards death-cumretirement gratuity. However, after retaining an amount of Rs.7,50,531/-, rest of the amount alone was released to the petitioner. Apparently, the said amount was retained on account of non-receipt of certain funds towards some scheme to the University as is promised by the Government of India.

¶25

According to the University letter was addressed by the University to the Government of India on 30.5.2017 and subsequently also, however, no action was taken to release the amount towards scheme fund.

¶26

In my considered opinion, the balance amount of gratuity is not released to the petitioner for no fault of the petitioner. It was retained on the ground that petitioner was in charge of that project. I am of the considered opinion, petitioner is not personally responsible for the same and, if at all any amount is due to the University that is a matter to be sorted out by and between the University and the Government of India and

¶27

WP(C).No.22422 OF 2019(C)

¶28

¶29

the petitioner cannot be penalised for the same.

¶30

In that view of the matter, petitioner is entitled to get the relief, as is sought for in the writ petition. Therefore, after having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the University and the learned ASGI, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the University to settle the balance DCRG to the petitioner, at the earliest, and at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which the amount shall be paid to the petitioner with 9% interest. I also make it clear that if any request is pending before the Union of India, in respect of the scheme fund, and it is legally due, it shall be released to the University, by the Union of India, at the earliest and any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Jm/

WP(C).No.22422 OF 2019(C)

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.5.2017 OF 3RD RESPONDENT TO 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.1.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PROFESSOR AND HEAD, COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE, VELLANIKKARA.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.1.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.7.2018 OF 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PROFESSOR AND HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF FLORICULTURE AND POMOLOGY, COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE, VELLANIKKARA.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.7.2018 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.1.2019 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 7.2.2019 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT VICE CHANCELLOR.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 28.3.2019 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 14.5.2019 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF ITEMS HANDED OVER ON THE DATED OF RETIREMENT (30.11.2017)
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.6.2018 OF THE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, KAU
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.7.2019 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE 3-MAIL IN REPLY TO THAT

¶40

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF LETTERS NO EP/B3/42575/11 DATED 26/11/2018

¶42

WP(C).No.22422 OF 2019(C)

¶43

¶44

EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF LETTERS NO EP/B3/42575/11 DATED 12/3/2019

¶45

EXHIBIT R1(c)

¶46

TRUE COPY OF LEETER NO.FLS/22/2017-18 DATED 15/3/2019 OF THE PROFESSOR AND HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF POMOLOGY AND FLORICULTURE, COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE, VELLANIKKARA.

Dr.C.K.Geetha, v. Kerala Agricultural University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.C.K.Geetha, v. Kerala Agricultural University

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

Mary John Vs Vinod Kumar

Napier Theodore Vs Director of Public Instruction

Jesy Joseph Vs State of Kerala

The Manager, Vs the State of Kerala

Ramani M., Vs Abdul Azeez

Jesbin P.B Vs the Union of India