Allowed

The State of Kerala v. Maria Goretty T.S.

Kerala HC10 Jul 2020OP(KAT)/119/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The O.P. (KAT) challenged the Tribunal's order imposing personal cost on the Director of Panchayats for disregarding interim orders. The Court found the explanation regarding lack of knowledge and authority sufficient, setting aside the cost order against the Director personally.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the part of the Tribunal's order directing the 2nd respondent in his personal capacity to pay Rs.25,000/- as cost.

The State of Kerala Vs Maria Goretty T.S. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1942

¶7

OP(KAT).No.119 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 734/2017 DATED 25-09-2018 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN O.A.:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 001.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATS, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, KERALA.

¶12

3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,KERALA.

¶13

BY SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS IN O.A.:

¶15

1 MARIA GORETTY T.S., W/O.ALFRED, MALIACKAL HOUSE, PACHALAM.P.O, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682 012, WORKING AS PERFORMANCE AUDIT SUPERVISOR, PERFORMANCE AUDIT UNIT-III, NEDUMBASSERY,

¶16

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682 030.

¶17

OP(KAT).No.119 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

2 MURALEEDHARAN.K, S/O KUMARAN NAIR, PEEDIKAPARAMBU PONJASSERY.P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 547, WORKING AS PERFORMANCE AUDIT SUPERVISOR, UNIT-II, KARUMALOOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,KOCHI(UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER),ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682 030.

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

SRI. T.T. MUHAMOOD-RESPONDENT

¶22

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

OP(KAT).No.119 OF 2020

JUDGMENT

Shaffique, J.

The respondents entered appearance through counsel.

¶28

The only grievance expressed by the learned Government

¶29

Pleader is with reference to the cost imposed by the Tribunal. While disposing of the original applications, the Tribunal after having observed that Annexure-A12 in O.A.No.734/2017 and Annexure-A9 in O.A.No.733/2017 are liable to be set aside, disposed of the O.A., with a direction to disburse the pensionary benefits due to the applicants after revising their scale of pay and also directed to disburse the amount due within a period of three months in O.A.No.733/2017. Similar direction was issued in O.A.734/2017. The Tribunal, however, found that the 2nd respondent had totally disregarded the interim orders of the Tribunal dated 28.07.2016 despite the fact that the applicants continued to be out of duty by virtue of the interim orders of the Tribunal. Resultantly, the period between 28.07.2016 to 06.02.2017 was considered as leave without allowance under Rule 88(b)(iii) invoking Rule 137 Part 1 KSR. The Director of Panchayat, who was the 2nd respondent in the O.A., was personally made liable

¶30

OP(KAT).No.119 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/-.

¶33

An affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd respondent before this Court, wherein it is stated that he has joined as Director of Panchayats only on 04.11.2016 and on the same month he left for IAS, in service Phase III training. He came back after 27.12.2016, hence, he was not aware of the history of the cases until it was placed before him by January, 2017. The orders of the KAT were brought to his notice only on 14.01.2017 and immediately thereafter prompt action was taken on the orders. It is further observed that the leave application as per Rule 88(b)(iii) was forwarded to the Government as the applicants have not performed the duty in terms of Rule 137 KSR Part 1 and the 2nd respondent had no authority to regularise the overstayal of absence for more than 120 days. Subsequently, the Government as per letter dated 25.04.2018 has informed that the period during which an officer abstains from duty for getting transfer to his convenience cannot be regularized as duty. Therefore, the said period was regularized as eligible leave. It is stated that the 2nd respondent, the appointing authority, has no

¶34

OP(KAT).No.119 OF 2020

¶35

¶36

power to regularise the period of overstayal for more

¶37

than 120 days and it is in the said circumstances, the Government permission was sought for.

¶38

In the light of the aforesaid facts and the explanation offered by the 2 nd respondent, we do not find any negligence on the part of the 2 nd respondent to mulct him with the liablity to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/-. The learned counsel for the respondents would also submit that the respondents have received all the arrears as directed

¶39

by the Tribunal. In the said circumstances, we set aside that part of the order directing the 2 nd respondent in his personal capacity to pay Rs.25,000/- as cost.

¶40

The O.P.(KAT) is disposed of accordingly.

¶41

Sd/A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶42

sd/GOPINATH.P, JUDGE

¶43

AMV/13/07/2020

¶44

OP(KAT).No.119 OF 2020

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT	P1	COPY OF THE O.A. ALONG WITH ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT	(A1)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E11-11/2015 DATED 27.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT	P1(A2)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1/01/2016 DATED 27.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P1(A3)	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 28.07.2016 IN OA NO.1728/2016.
EXHIBIT	P1(A4)	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 28.07.2016 IN OA 1729/2016
EXHIBIT	P1(A5)	TRUE COPIES OF THE LETTER NO.PAE- 602/2014 DATED 01.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE
		ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT	P1(A6)	TRUE COPIES OF THE LETTER NO.PAE- 602/2014 DATED 01.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT	P1(A7)	TRUE COPIES OF THE LETTER NO.PAE- 602/2014 DATED 29.07.2016 SENT BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, ERNAKULAM TO THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT	P1(A8)	TRUE COPIES OF THE LETTER NO.PAE- 602/2014 DATED 03.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, ERNAKULAM TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT	P1(A9)	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 04.11.2016.
EXHIBIT	P1(A10)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 28.11.2016 PASSED IN OA 1728,1729 & 1732/2016.
EXHIBIT	P1(A11)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2017 IN OP(KAT)NO.37,41 & 42/2017.

¶49

OP(KAT).No.119 OF 2020

¶50

¶51

EXHIBIT 1(A12) TRUE COPY OF THE ORER NO.E11-25560/17 DATED 31.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT P2 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REJOINDER STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN EXHIBIT P3(A13) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.96/EPB1/2017/LSGD DATED 24.04.2017 EXHIBIT P3(A14) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H4-9018/17 DATED 27.06.2017. EXHIBIT P3(A15) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H4-9015/2017 DATED 27.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2018 EXHIBIT P5 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2019.

¶52

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶53

TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE

The State of Kerala v. Maria Goretty T.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Kerala v. Maria Goretty T.S.

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

Union of India, Vs M.K.Lohithakshan

Mohandas.K Vs State of Kerala

The Medical Director, Kannur Dental College Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences

Divya S.J. Vs State of Kerala

The Manager, Amlps, Vs Jose Pappalil

Sathyabhama P Vs State of Kerala