V.P.Premakrishnan vs Assistant Educational Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 5406 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942

                      WP(C).No.23008 OF 2020(A)


PETITIONER:

               V.P.PREMAKRISHNAN, AGED 58 YEARS
               S/O.KRISHNAN, KRISHNA NIKETH, PANOOR,
               ELANCODE P.O., KANNUR-670 692

               BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR

RESPONDENTS:

      1        ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
               PANOOR-670 692

      2        ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
               INDIAN AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-696639

      3        THE MANAGER, THIRUVAL U.P. SCHOOL, PANOOR, ELANCODE,
               KANNUR-670 692

      4        DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
               KANNUR - 670 002

               SRI.P.M.MANOJ - SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD         ON
15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.23008 OF 2020(A)

                                            2


                                    JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of February 2021

The sole issue in this case is whether the Death cum

Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) payable to the petitioner, who

retired from the services of the Thiruval U.P.School as an

Upper Primary School Teacher on 31.03.2020, can be withheld

on the allegation that he had caused certain bogus admissions

in the school in question.

2. When this matter was considered by me on

14.12.2020, the following interim order had been issued after

hearing both sides:

"Sri.M.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that in spite of the interim order of this Court afore the amounts of DCRG has not been paid to the petitioner.

Sri.Unnikrishna Kaimal, the learned Government Pleader submits that he needs time to obtain instructions in this matter.

However, it is well settled on account of a judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Chandran v. Local Self Government Department [2020 (5) KLT 669 (FB)] that, even if the allegations against the petitioner are taken to be correct, no amounts can be deducted from the DCRG.

I, therefore, modify the afore referred order and direct the respondents to pay the entire amount of DCRG to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. I order the respondents to treat these directions as being peremptory; and caution that any violation will visit them with necessary consequences."

WP(C).No.23008 OF 2020(A)

3. Today, when this case is called, the learned Senior

Government Pleader, Sri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that all steps

have been taken to implement the interim order and thus

prayed that no further directions be issued in this writ petition,

since all the petitioner's prayers have been acceded to.

4. Sri.M.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that even though the

time fixed by this Court in the afore interim order has expired,

no payment has yet been paid and that his client intends to

initiate appropriate action for disobedience against the

respondents.

5. Whatever be the rival submissions of the learned

counsel with respect to the actual payment of DCRG is

concerned, it is without doubt - as is admitted - that in

Chandran v. Local Self Government Department [2020 (5)

KLT 669 (FB)], it has been affirmatively declared that even if

the allegations against the petitioner is taken to be true, his

DCRG cannot be withheld. Obviously, therefore, all that is

required in this case is to confirm the interim order afore

extracted and to dispose of this writ petition on such terms. WP(C).No.23008 OF 2020(A)

In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is ordered,

confirming the afore extracted interim order and declaring

that no amounts can be recovered from the DCRG of the

petitioner, on the allegation that he was involved in making

"bogus admissions" to the school in question.

After I dictated this judgment, the learned Senior

Government Pleader submitted that a new application,

numbered as I.A.No.1/2021, has been preferred seeking that

the time frame for making payment of the amounts to the

petitioner be extended by a further period of three months.

However, Sri.M.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel for the

petitioner strongly opposed this contending that the reason

stated in the affidavit in support of this I.A is egregiously

improper, since it is averred therein that clarifications from the

Government is awaited for implementation of the afore

extracted interim order.

I find force in the submissions of Sri.M.Vijayakumar

since, once the law has been declared by this Court in

Chandran (supra), I fail to understand why the Authorities

must seek further clarification from the Government. This is

clearly an affront to the directions of this Court and I cannot WP(C).No.23008 OF 2020(A)

countenance the same.

However, since the learned Senior Government Pleader

submits that the time frame fixed in the afore extracted

interim order have already expired, I grant a further time of

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment

judgment to make payment as ordered herein.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

stu JUDGE WP(C).No.23008 OF 2020(A)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT DATED 30.4.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(P) NO.67/2020/FIN. DATED 27.5.2020

EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED 16.7.2020

EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 26.8.2019

EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT) 78/2015 DATED 08.09.2020