Allowed

Sesadri Ramanathan T.N. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Mar 2024WP(C)/9700/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the withholding of DCRG dues due to a fixation of liability order issued more than three years after the petitioner's retirement. Relying on Rule 3 Part III of KSR, the Court held that liability must be fixed within three years, setting aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P8 set aside; direction to pay the entire DCRG amount sanctioned minus the amount already paid within three months.

Sesadri Ramanathan T.N. Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9700 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SESADRI RAMANATHAN T.N.
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.T.R.NATARAJAN, SIVAKRIPA HOUSE, VAIDHYASALA,
VADAVANNUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 504.
BY ADVS.
KALEESWARAM RAJ
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
KUM.A.ARUNA
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS), JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014.

¶11

3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

¶12

CIVIL STATION, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶13

4 ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER

¶14

KOLLENGODE ANAMARI RD., KOLLENGODE - 678 506.

¶15

5 ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E), AG'S OFFICE COMPLEX, CANTONMENT STATION RD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 001.

¶16

6 SUB TREASURY OFFICE PAYYALLUR, KOLLENGODE, KERALA - 678 506.

¶17

SMT. K.G. SAROGINI - GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 9700 OF 2021

¶20

..2..

¶21

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J. ========================= W.P.(C) No. 9700 of 2021 ========================= Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2024

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The petitioner retired from service on 06.11.2017 as Headmaster of AUPS, Alampallam, an aided school. A total sum of Rs.11,27,115/- was sanctioned as DCRG, payable to the petitioner. The said amount was not paid on account of fixation of an alleged liability in Ext.P8 order dated 18.02.2021. The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 and seeks a declaration that he is entitled to be disbursed the entire DCRG amount of Rs.11,27,115/- with interest.

¶24

An interim order was passed by this Court on 09.04.2021 directing the respondent to release the admitted amount of DCRG. Thereafter, it was submitted on behalf of the learned Government Pleader that the amount of DCRG due to the petitioner has already been disbursed. The petitioner submits that he had received an amount of Rs.9,64,465/-. The main contention of the petitioner is that since he retired from service on 06.11.2017, going by the provision contained in Rule 3 Part III

¶25

..3..

¶26

WP(C) NO. 9700 OF 2021

¶27

of KSR, liability has to be fixed within three years from the date of retirement, which meant on or before 06.11.2017 and since Ext.P8 was issued only on 18.02.2021, the said liability is fixed out of time. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment by this Court in Ramakrishnan P.K. v. Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd. And Others (2022 (2) KHC 503).

¶28

The learned Government Pleader submits that it is on account of the laxity and irresponsible performance of the head of the office that there was a delay in disbursing the DCRG amount. It will be open to the government to demand/ fix liability on any official if they were responsible for the delay in taking appropriate steps against the petitioner. The same, however, will not be a reason for withholding the amounts under the head of DCRG payable to the petitioner in terms of the rules. Since no fixation of liability was done within three years, as stated above,

¶29

with holding the amount of DCRG cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the following directions;

¶30

Ext.P8 is set aside.

¶31

There will be a direction to pay the entire amount

¶32

WP(C) NO. 9700 OF 2021

¶33

..4..

¶34

sanctioned as DCRG minus the amount already paid within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.,

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

¶39

WP(C) NO. 9700 OF 2021

¶40

..5..

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9700/2021

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS :

¶43

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY` `04/12/2018`	`OF THE ORDER NO.B/2311/2017 DATED` `ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY` `DATED` `0` `NO.10184122` `OFFICER T` `OFFICER, KO`	`OF THE GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER` `5/10/2018` `WITH` `APPLICATION` `09 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS` `O THE DISTRICT/SUB TREASURY` `LLENGODE.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY`	`OF THE NOTICE NO.C/1983/2020`
	`DATED 01/` `RESPONDENT`	`10/2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `TO TH PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY` `DISTRICT` `19/10/2020` `AMOUNT` `P` `SCHOLARSHIP` `DEPOSITED B`	`OF THE CHALAN ISSUED BY THE` `TREASURY/SUB TREASURY DATED` `FOR RS.300/- TOWARDS EXCESS` `ERTAINING` `TO` `MUSLIM` `GIRL` `FOR THE YEAR 2004-2005` `Y THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY` `DISTRICT` `19/10/2020` `PERTAINING` `YEAR 2004-2`	`OF THE CHALAN ISSUED BY THE` `TREASURY/SUB TREASURY DATED` `FOR RS.150 TOWARDS EXCESS AMOUNT` `TO SANSKRIT SCHOLARSHIP FOR THE` `005 DEPOSITED BY THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY` `DISTRICT` `19/10/2020` `AMOUNT PER` `FOR THE Y` `PETITIONER.`	`OF THE CHALAN ISSUED BY THE` `TREASURY/SUB TREASURY DATED` `FOR RS.2800/- TOWARDS EXCESS` `TAINING TO PRE MATRIC SCHOLARSHIP` `EAR 2014-2015 DEPOSITED BY THE`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY` `ISSUED BY` `OF S.S.K.,` `OF NOVEMBER`	`OF THE NON LIABILITY CERTIFICATE` `THE DISTRICT PROJECT COORDINATOR` `PALAKKAD WITH FILE NO.A/1071/20` `2020.`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY` `THE ACCOUN` `OF THE 3RD` `LETTER NO.H`	`OF TE AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED BY` `TS OFFICER ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE` `RESPONDENT ALONG WITH COVERING` `2/15482/2020 DATED 18/02/2021.`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY`	`OF THE REPLY DATED 03/04/2021`
	`SUBMITTED` `RESPONDENT.`	`BY PETITIONER TO THE 4TH`

¶44

// True Copy // PA To Judge

Sesadri Ramanathan T.N. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sesadri Ramanathan T.N. v. State of Kerala

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

Subin Chacko Vs Union of India

Manager, Vs State of Kerala

Abhijith P Vs State of Kerala

Sebastian. P.V Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government

Akshay Bhaskar K. Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences

Perinthalmanna Municipality Vs Asst.Executive Engineer, P.W.D.& Others