Allowed

K.V. Ouseph v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Kerala HC15 Nov 2021WP(C)/8946/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a demand for medical reimbursement raised after nearly nine years was time-barred. The court quashed the impugned notices and issued a mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner's pensionary benefits and DCRG within two months.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P2 and P4 quashed; mandamus issued to release pensionary benefits and DCRG within two months.

K.V. Ouseph Vs the Kerala State Road… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 8946 OF 2017

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.V. OUSEPH AGED 54 YEARS S/O. K.V. VARGHESE, DRIVER SPECIAL GRADE, KSRTC, PALAKKAD DEPOT, PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT KANNANAYIKKALHOUSE, PALLIPPURAM (PO), KALLIKKAD, PALAKKAD - 678 806. BY ADV SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHIEF OFFICE, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶10

2 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF OFFICE, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001

¶11

3 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER PALAKKAD DEPOT, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SHRI.T.P SAJAN, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION DEEPU THANKAN SHRI.T.P SAJAN, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 8946 OF 2017

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

It is a classic case of an atrocity at the behest of the respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation upon the petitioner raising a demand of Rs.91,770/-on the allegation of not submitting the medical bills on account of having undergone heart bypass surgery on 31.01.2007.

¶17

Petitioner in the year 2000 was appointed as Driver Grade-II in KSRTC and continued to work with full dedication and sincerity. Unfortunately while in employment developed some cardiac problems and was diagnosed to be suffering from triple vessel coronary artery disease. He was advised to undergo a surgery. The surgery was performed on 31.01.2007 as per the medical certificate dated 12.07.2007 (Ext.P1), discharged on 06.02.2007 and was advised to take rest.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that for the purpose of undergoing the surgery petitioner had submitted an application for advance under the medical reimbursement scheme and was sanctioned on 04.01.2007 an amount of Rs.47,000/-. He has spent amounts over and above which has been sanctioned. Petitioner submitted

¶19

WP(C) NO. 8946 OF 2017

¶20

¶21

all the bills for the satisfaction of the respondents and did not hear either any rejection or clarification whatsoever. However, was flabbergasted to receive the demand dated 03.10.2016 (Ext.P2) on the premise that the petitioner did not submit the bills from time to time in respect of the treatment. Vide Ext.P4 dated 24.12.2016 a recovery memo was issued by the District Transport Officer for the recovery of the an amount of Rs.91,770/-. The aforementioned demand is ex facie barred by law of limitation and cannot be raised at the time when the petitioner had already superannuated; neither his pensionary benefits or DCRG have been released but is getting only provisional pension. He further argued that this Court can also include the relief of payment of the pensionary benefits and DCRG, taking into consideration relief No.(e) ie., ‘such other relief that the Hon’ble Court deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case’.

¶22

Per contra, Sri.Deepu Thankan, learned counsel representing the KSRTC submitted that petitioner has not placed on record any material ie., the details to show the amount he had actually spent for the treatment and in the absence of the same, advance amount has been drawn, by adding up the interest,

¶23

WP(C) NO. 8946 OF 2017

¶24

¶25

impugned Exts.P2 and P4 dated 03.10.2016 and 24.12.2016 have rightly been raised. It is on that account the provisional pension is being paid by retaining the pensionary benefits and DCRG.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶27

appraised the paper book and of the view that there is force and merits in the submission of Sri.U.Balagangadharan, learned counsel representing the petitioner for the reasons that no sane person would be able to resubmit the copy of the bills after the expiry of almost 9 years as the surgery had undertaken on 30.01.2007. Petitioner would not have retained the bills at the time of submission and had it not been done, the respondents ought to have raked up the issue immediately; but their silence for a period of 9 years and raking the issue thereafter leads to the irresistible conclusion that it is an act of putting the blame on

¶28

the petitioner which I would refrain from commenting further. The demand of Rs.91,770/- is ex facie time barred as the amount sought to be recovered in any general law or as per the law i.e., Articles 137 of the Limitation Act is three years. No steps have been taken by the respondents to raise such demand within the time referred to above. Withholding of pensionary benefits and

¶29

WP(C) NO. 8946 OF 2017

¶30

¶31

DCRG is also an arbitrary and fallacious act. This Court has come across many cases where the employees of the KSRTC have approached this Court not for one relief but for many other reliefs as has been indicated above and the stand of the respondent had been only on account of paucity of the funds. The corporation is not supposed to withhold the statutory bill of an employee for an infinite period but could always move an application by the competent authority for appropriate steps.

¶32

As an upshot of my finding, I quash Exts.P2 and P4 ie., the demand raised by the respondents of Rs.91.770/- and further issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the pensionary benefits as well as the DCRG within a

¶33

period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In case the amount is not released it will entail into interest of 6.5% to be burdened on the employee who is

¶34

responsible for non-disbursement.

¶35

Writ petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

nak

WP(C) NO. 8946 OF 2017

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8946/2017

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AMRITHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE DATED 12.07.2007. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 05.10.2016. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 24.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

K.V. Ouseph v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.V. Ouseph v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

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

Dr. Padmadas.K.L Vs State of Kerala

Reni Antony Vs University of Kerala

Mohankumar K.S Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Lini B., Vs Government of Kerala

Nainu Vijayan Vs the Principal, Govt. Brennen College Thalassery

Dr. Sumesh. R.V. Vs Dr. Unnikrishnan Nair