Partly allowed

The State of Kerala v. Sudhakaran V.K.

Kerala HC11 Oct 2021WA/1311/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the State's appeal against a judgment directing payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity to a retired assistant teacher. Unless the liability was quantified within three years of retirement, only an undisputed amount of Rs. 33,947 could be deducted from the gratuity.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed to the extent it claimed no deduction was permissible. The State was directed to release DCRG after deducting Rs. 33,947.

The State of Kerala Vs Sudhakaran V.K. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶6

MONDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 19TH ASWINA, 1943

¶7

WA NO. 1311 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.12.2020 IN WP(C) 27402/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶9

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1-6 IN WP(C):

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 104.

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 105.

¶13

4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 303.

¶14

5 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶15

6 THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE- 673631

¶16

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE,SR.

¶17

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER IN WP(C):

¶18

SRI.SUDHAKARAN V.K.,ASSISTANT TEACHER (RETIRED), DEVI VILASAM AUP SCHOOL, ARIYALLUR, RESIDING AT SARADA NIVAS, BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE-673 015.

¶19

BY ADV.SRI.R.K.MURALIEDHARAN

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

:2:

W.A.No.1311 of 2021

JUDGMENT

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

¶25

This Writ Appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment dated 08.12.2020 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C).No.27402 of 2020. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had found that the action of the State Government in withholding the payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) to the writ petitioner was erroneous in law, inasmuch as the quantification of the alleged liability of the writ petitioner was completed and communicated to the petitioner only after three years from the date of his retirement from service (30.04.2017), and by virtue of the provisions of Note 3 to Rule 3 Part III KSR, such action was not permitted under the statutory rules. The writ petition was therefore allowed by directing the Government to disburse DCRG to the petitioner as sanctioned by Ext.P9 order of the Accountant General expeditiously but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶26

Before us, it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that while it may be a fact that an amount of Rs.2,09,608/- had been found due from the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner had approached this Court through separate proceedings and by Ext.P7

¶27

:3:

¶28

W.A.No.1311 of 2021

¶29

judgment the said demand against the writ petitioner was set aside, there was still an amount of Rs.1,18,236/- that was outstanding from the writ petitioner consequent to Ext.P13 order of the Government dated 12.03.2020. It is stated that it was this latter amount, together with a sum of Rs.33,947/- that was fixed as per Ext.P12 order dated 20.08.2019, that was sought to be recovered from the writ petitioner through Ext.P15 order dated 27.10.2020.

¶30

On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that, of the amounts mentioned in Ext.P15, only the amount of Rs.33,947/- can be traced to the proceedings that determined any liability of the writ petitioner within the period of three years from the date of his retirement. Accordingly, we find that only this amount can legally be deducted from the DCRG outstanding to the writ petitioner. The State cannot withhold either the amount of Rs.1,18,236/- or the amount of Rs.2,09,608/- from the DCRG amounts payable to the writ petitioner for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, while otherwise dismissing this Writ Appeal, we hold that the writ petitioner would be liable to pay the amount of Rs.33,947/- to the State. We direct the State Government to release the DCRG amounts due to the petitioner, as directed by the learned Single Judge, after withholding the amount of Rs.33,947/-. The DCRG amount shall be released as above within three weeks from the

¶31

:4:

¶32

W.A.No.1311 of 2021

¶33

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

The Writ Appeal is disposed as above.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

mns

:5:

W.A.No.1311 of 2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS ANNEXURE

¶44

ANNEXURE A1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2020 IN SLP NO.14881-14882/2020

¶45

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURE:NIL

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

P.A TO JUDGE

The State of Kerala v. Sudhakaran V.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Kerala v. Sudhakaran V.K.

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

Premakumari P. Vs Union of India

Kumari Prabha Suresh Vs Union of India

Sunil Kumar Mohana Kumaran Thampi Vs Union of India

Dr.Arun Kumar, Vs Society for Social Surveillance

Mary Grace P.V Vs State of Kerala

Muhamed Ameer P.P. Vs K.Manohar