Partly allowed

Nazaruddin a., v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Kerala HC20 May 2022WP(C)/330/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala addressed a petition by a retired Assistant Engineer seeking full release of retirement benefits despite a pending vigilance case. The Court found the 50% provisional pension unjustified compared to a similarly placed employee receiving 75% and directed the respondents to disburse 75% of the eligible pension.

What did the court decide?

Directed to disburse 75% of eligible pension from 01.07.2022 and pay differential pension due from 01.12.2018.

Nazaruddin a., Vs Kerala State Electricity… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 330 OF 2020

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

NAZARUDDIN A.,
AGED 57 YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL
SECTION, KRISHNAPURAM, KAYAMKULAM, (RESIDING AT
EDAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERUVA SOUTH, KAYAMKULAM P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT).
BY ADVS.
K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶9

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M.), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶10

3 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M.)II, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. BY ADV SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 330 OF 2020

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2022

¶15

The petitioner retired from the Electricity Board as Assistant Engineer on 30.11.2018. The petitioner is being paid only 50% of his eligible pension for the reason that a vigilance case is pending against him. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P4 communication, rejecting the petitioner’s request to release his retirement benefits in full and to direct the Electricity Board to disburse atleast 80% of his eligible pension.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Division Bench decision in Venu P. v. Union of India and others [2020 (1) KHC 382] to contend that, maximum pension should be sanctioned as the provisional pension based on the qualifying service of the retired employee and that, pension is termed provisional only to reserve the Government’s right to recover from the pension, any pecuniary loss caused or to withhold or to withdraw, a part or even the whole of the

¶17

WP(C) NO. 330 OF 2020

¶18

3

¶19

pension as a punishment. Learned Counsel also points out that, till date the vigilance case initiated against the petitioner has not attained finality and payment of eligible pension as only 50% provisional pension to the petitioner causing immense hardship to him. It is submitted that under Ext.P5, another employee involved in criminal case is being paid 75% of admitted pension as provisional pension.

¶20

Learned Standing Counsel pointed out that, the employee named in Ext.P5 was not given gratuity and it was in such circumstances that 75% of his pension was decided to be paid as provisional pension. In the petitioner’s case, the entire amount of gratuity has been disbursed and hence, the decision to pay only 50% of the eligible pension as provisional pension.

¶21

Having heard the learned Counsel on either side and in the light of the decision in Venu.P.(supra), I find more merit in the contentions put forth on the petitioner’s behalf. The fact that, 75% of the eligible pension is being

¶22

¶23

WP(C) NO. 330 OF 2020

¶24

paid to a similarly placed employee is not in dispute. Even otherwise, there is no justification in paying only 50% of eligible pension to the petitioner, on the premise that the entire gratuity amount is paid to him.

¶25

The Writ Petition is hence disposed of, directing the respondents to disburse 75% of petitioner’s eligible pension as provisional pension from 01.07.2022 onwards. The differential amount of provisional pension due from 01.12.2018 till 01.07.2022, shall be disbursed within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

RK

¶30

¶31

WP(C) NO. 330 OF 2020

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 330/2020

¶33

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PA IX/PPO
NO.43972/PROVL.PEN./67 DATED 18/03/2019
ISSUED BY THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER OF THE
FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶34

EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PA IX/PPO
43972/79/19-20 DATED 27/07/2019 ISSUED
BY THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 16/09/2019.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.EBPS.18/1838/2018 DATED 5/12/2019
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PA I/PPO
41746 DATED 9/4/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.

Nazaruddin a., v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazaruddin a., v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meethian Vs Jafar Khan

Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs Prakash

Savithri.M., Vs Union of India

Alby M.S., Vs Corporation of Cochin

Sheeja.N.P., Vs State of Kerala

Special Tahsildar (La)Railways Vs Sulochana