Chandrika Devi Amma.I vs Secretary To Government
2021 Latest Caselaw 5855 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                                      &
                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

           THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/29TH MAGHA,1942

                             W.A.No.195 OF 2020

             AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21588/2019(W) OF
                             HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT:

                CHANDRIKA DEVI AMMA.I.
                AGED 64 YEARS, RETIRED PRINCIPAL, MOUNT TABOR TRAINING
                COLLEGE, PATHANAPURAM, RESIDING AT PODIKKALA
                PADINJATTETHIL, KURAMPALA, PANDALAM.P.O.,
                PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689501.

                BY ADVS.SRI.T.SANJAY
                        SHRI.SANIL KUMAR G.

RESPONDENTS:

       1        SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
                HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

       2        DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
                VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033.

       3        DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
                SOUTH ZONE, KOLLAM, PIN-691001.

       4        ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,
                KERALA, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

       5        THE PRINCIPAL,
                MOUNT TABOR TRAINING COLLEGE, PATHANAPURAM,
                KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-689695.

       6        SUB TREASURY OFFICER,
                SUB TREASURY, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
                PIN-689501.

                BY SMT.RAJI T. BHASKAR, GOVT. PLEADER

          THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
    18.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.195/2020                     :: 2 ::




                           JUDGMENT

Gopinath P., J.

The appellant, while working as a Selection Grade Lecturer in

the Mount Tabor Training College, Pathanapuram, was sent on

deputation to undergo Ph.D course under the Quality

Improvement Program [QIP] of the UGC during the period from

25.2.2005 to 24.2.2007. The appellant, however, could not complete

the Ph.D, and she rejoined duty on 25.2.2007. She completed Ph.D

after her retirement on 31.3.2010. Since the appellant did not

acquire Ph.D within the stipulated time, she was called upon,

through Ext.P7, to remit a sum of Rs.5,86,270/- along with 12.5%

interest and another sum of Rs.2,72,772/-, which was stated to be

the amount paid for arranging a substitute teacher during the

period of absence of the appellant.

2. The appellant, therefore, challenged the demand by filing

W.P.(C).No.21588/2019. The learned Single Judge dismissed the

Writ Petition finding that in terms of the bond executed by the W.A.No.195/2020 :: 3 ::

appellant at the time when she was deputed for the acquisition of

Ph.D under the QIP, she was liable to pay the amounts demanded

through Ext.P7. The learned counsel for the appellant would

contend that the appellant had acquired Ph.D after retirement, and

thereafter, she had worked in the Kerala University College of

Teacher Education, Adoor for nearly six years, discharging yeomen

service to the teaching community. It is his further contention that

the appellant was also part of the National Council for Teacher

Education, and therefore that it could not be said that she did not

contribute to the community following the acquisition of Ph.D. Or

that the Government and the General public did not benefit from

the leave with allowances granted to her for the acquisition of

Ph.D. Alternatively, he would contend that at any rate the amount

paid to the substitute teacher, which is in the sum of Rs.2,72,772/-,

cannot be recovered from her as the salary and allowances paid to

her during the period are already sought to be recovered. He would

point out that the bond executed by her never made her liable to

pay the amount paid to a substitute teacher during the period of

the absence of the appellant.

W.A.No.195/2020 :: 4 ::

3. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand,

contend that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is in

accordance with the law, and the learned Single Judge has found

that the appellant/writ petitioner is liable to pay the amounts

demanded through Ext.P7, after holding that the terms of the bond

clearly required the appellant/writ petitioner to pay those

amounts.

4. Regarding the amount of pay and allowances which is

sought to be recovered from the appellant/writ petitioner we are of

the opinion that the appellant/writ petitioner is liable to pay such

amount in terms of the bond executed by her. It is admitted that

the Ph.D qualification was not obtained by the appellant/writ

petitioner within the time stipulated. Therefore, the appellant/writ

petitioner is bound to pay the amount of salary and allowances

drawn during the period of leave in terms of the bond executed by

her. We, therefore, find that the learned Single Judge was justified

in holding that the appellant/writ petitioner was liable to pay that

amount. However, insofar as the amount of Rs.2,72,772/- is

concerned, which is the amount demanded on account of payment W.A.No.195/2020 :: 5 ::

made to a substitute teacher, we find that the appellant/writ

petitioner cannot be made liable to the same for the reason that

this was not a condition in the bond executed by her and also on

account of the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner had rejoined

duty immediately after the period of leave sanctioned to her.

Further, the liability to pay for a substitute teacher was clearly that

of the Government and such amount cannot be recovered from the

appellant/writ petitioner.

5. At this point, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ

petitioner contends that the rate of interest @ 12.5% demanded in

Ext.P7 is quite on the higher side, and that, no specific rate of

interest had been mentioned in the bond and therefore, we must

reduce the rate of interest to a reasonable percentage. We feel that

this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/writ

petitioner is well-founded, and it would be appropriate to reduce

the rate of interest to 9% per annum, considering the fact that the

bank interest etc. during the period in question cannot have been

more than that and in the overall facts and circumstances of the

case. We also concur with the view taken by the learned Single W.A.No.195/2020 :: 6 ::

Judge that interest would be payable only up to 1.4.2010, the date

on which the petitioner retired from service on account of the fact

that DCRG due to her has not been released to her till date. After

adjusting the amount of Rs.5,86,270/- together with interest at the

rate of 9% per annum till 1.4.2010, the balance of the DCRG and

any other benefit due to the appellant/writ petitioner shall be

released without further delay, and at any rate, within a period of

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The Writ Appeal is disposed by upholding the directions of

the learned Single Judge as modified by the directions in this

judgment.

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE prp/18/2/21 APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.9.2016 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.5.2018 RRE - ENGAGING THE PETITIONER IN THE KERALA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION ADOOR.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:    NIL.



                         //TRUE COPY//


                         P.S. TO JUDGE