Allowed

Senan S v. Regional Cancer Centre (Rcc)

Kerala HC21 Mar 2024WP(C)/34914/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Senior helper claimed that Rs.6,50,770/- deducted from his gratuity as alleged excess payment was illegal. The court relied on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih to hold that such recovery from Class III/IV employees is impermissible, quashing the recovery order and directing refund with interest.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 quashed to the extent of recovery; 1st respondent directed to refund Rs.6,50,770/- with 6% interest from one month after retirement date within 2 months.

Senan S Vs Regional Cancer Centre (Rcc) — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

WPC 34914/23

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946

¶7

WP(C) NO. 34914 OF 2023

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

SENAN S, AGED 61 YEARS AMMU BHAVAN TC 714(5) SIVASHAKTHI
NAGAR THURUVAKKAL, PULAYANARKOTTA, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.
TRIVANDRUM 695011, PIN - 695011

¶10

BY ADV CYRIAC TOM

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE (RCC) 1. REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE (RCC) REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR RCC P.O. BOX 2417, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695011, PIN - 695011

¶13

2 STATE OF KERALA HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE (J) DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001, PIN - 695001

¶14

BY ADV ANWIN JOHN ANTONY

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SC SRI. ATHUL SHAJI, SR GP SMT MARY BEENA JOSEPH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOL-
LOWING:

WPC 34914/23

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2024)

¶22

The petitioner retired from the Regional Cancer Centre

¶23

(RCC) as Senior helper on 30.4.2022 having served the institution

¶24

for 35 years. The petitioner submits that on retirement, he was entitled to an amount of Rs.9,40,252/- as gratuity. The 1^st respondent by Ext.P4 order, decided to deduct an amount of Rs.6,50,770/- which was allegedly paid in excess to the petitioner.

¶25

The said amount was deducted and the petitioner was paid the

¶26

remining amount.

¶27

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery effected is illegal and unsustainable in view of the judgment of apex court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [(2015) 4 SCC

¶28

334] .

¶29

The Government Pleader as well as standing counsel do not refute the submission of the petitioner.

¶30

¶31

WPC 34914/23

¶32

In Rafiq Masih (supra), the apex court held that recovery

¶33

of any amounts paid to any employees belonging to Class III or

¶34

IV service or group C and D service, is impermissible in law. The petitioner is admittedly a Class III employee, and therefore, the respondents cannot recover any amounts which has been paid to the petitioner. Therefore, Ext.P4 stands quashed to the extent of recovery of an amount of Rs.6,50,770/- towards the alleged excess salary drawn by the petitioner. Consequently, the 1^st respondent is directed to refund the amount of Rs. Rs.6,50,770/- (Rs.Six lakh fifty thousand seven hundred and seventy only) adjusted from the gratuity amount, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of one month after the date of retirement, within 2 months from the date of receipt of a

¶35

copy of this judgment.

¶36

Writ Petition is allowed as above.

¶37

Sd/BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE

dl/

WPC 34914/23

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34914/2023

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶43

Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER NO.1/55/87/ADMN/RCC DATED 10TH FEBRUARY 1987 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶44

Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05TH AUGUST 1993 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT GRANTING THE FIRST ASSESSMENT PROMOTION TO THE PETITIONER

¶45

Exhibit P3 COPY OF G.O. (MS) NO.148/2000/ HF&WD DATED 17.06.2000 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO RATIFY THE PAY REVISION FROM 01.03.1997

¶46

Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE ORDER NO RCC/437/2002-FIN E ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT RECOVERING ALLEGED EXCESS PAYMENT FROM SERVICE GRATUITY DATED 10.08.2022

¶47

Exhibit P5COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN
W.P(C). NO. 26072 OF 2020

¶48

Exhibit P6COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WA
790 OF 2022

Senan S v. Regional Cancer Centre (Rcc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senan S v. Regional Cancer Centre (Rcc)

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

Biju.P.C., Vs State of Kerala

Meppady Grama Panchayath Vs the State of Kerala

K. Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Balasubrahmaniom M.D. Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Yohannan.K.P Vs the Chairman and Managing Director

Arunkumar S. Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board