Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2021
OP(KAT)No.418/2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 7TH MAGHA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.418 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 2210/2018 DATED 06-08-2019 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN OA:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695 033.
3 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA,
OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 009.
4 THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER,
DISTRICT TREASURY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
5 THE PRINCIPAL, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.B.VINOD
OP(KAT)No.418/2020 2
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN OA:
AJITHA C.K.
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O.LATE SASEENDRA BABU,
SAPARYA, NLRA-3, NEERAZHI LANE, ULLOOR, MEDICAL
COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR, BOTANY (RETIRED), UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
BY SRI.RAJESH.P.NAIR
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 27.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT)No.418/2020 3
(CR)
ALEXANDER THOMAS & T.R. RAVI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
O.P.(KAT)No.418 of 2020
(Arising out of the impugned final order dated 06.08.2019
in O.A.No.2210/2018 on the file of the KAT, Tvm. Bench)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
The State of Kerala and four others have instituted this original
petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with
the following prayers (See page No.13 of the paper book of this original
petition).
"1. To set aside the Exhibit P3 Order of the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 2210/2018
2. To dismiss the Exhibit P1 Original Application
No.2210/2018 filed by the Petitioner before the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal, holding that the Petitioner is not
eligible for any of the reliefs claimed in the Exhibit P1 Original
Application.
3. Any other order or direction as this Honourable
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case."
2. Heard Sri B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader
appearing for the petitioners (State of Kerala and others)/respondents
1 to 5 in the OA before the Tribunal and Sri Rajesh P.Nair,
learned Advocate appearing for the sole respondent in the OP/
original applicant before the Tribunal.
3. The applicant's husband, Sri Saseendra Babu had retired
from service as Associate Professor in Botany from the University
College, Thiruvananthapuram (which is a Government owned College)
on 31.03.2012. The said pensioner had later died on 10.04.2017. The
complaint of the original applicant, who is the widow of the deceased
pensioner, is that so far the DCRG due to the pensioner has not been
paid, in spite of the expiry of the outer time limit of three years as
envisaged in Note 3 appended to Rule 3 of Part III KSR. The deceased
husband of the original applicant will be referred to hereinafter for
convenience as the 'teacher'.
4. While the teacher concerned was working as Selection
Grade Lecturer in Botany in the University College,
Thiruvananthapuram, he was selected for deputation to undergo
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) under the Fellowship Improvement
Programme (FIP) of the UGC (University Grants Commission) for the
period from 2.11.2004 to 2.11.2006. Consequent thereto, he was
relieved from the Universality College, Thiruvananthapuram with effect
from 2.11.2004 A.N., in order to join the FIP Programme as can be seen
from Annexure A1 relieving order dated 2.11.2004. It is also common
ground that the competent authority of the State Government in the
Higher Education Department had also sanctioned his deputation as
per Annexure A2 G.O.(Rt)No.285/2005/H.Edn. dated 21.2.2005. It
appears that no substitute Lecturer/teacher was appointed in his
vacancy consequent to his deputation to undergo the Ph.D. as per the
FIP Programme. The teacher concerned had earlier executed a bond in
terms of Annexure A3 dated 28.2.2005. It is the case of the original
applicant that her deceased husband had fulfilled all the conditions for
submitting the thesis, but he failed to submit the same in time, for
reasons beyond his control and as such he could not secure the Ph.D.
Degree within the stipulated time. Later, a further period of five
months was also granted to him under the FIP programme for the
period from 2.11.2006 to 31.3.2007 for which Annexure A4
supplemental agreement dated 2.2.2007 was also executed by him. It
is also beyond any dispute that the teacher concerned had formally
joined duty in the College concerned after the completion of the FIP
Programme, but he could not secure Ph.D. Degree. It is later that the
teacher had retired from service as Associate Professor in Botany from
the University College, Thiruvananthapuram on 31.03.2012. After
retirement, he was sanctioned various retiral benefits and DCRG
amount of Rs.7 lakhs was sanctioned to him as per Annexure A5 dated
15.10.2012. However, the said amount of DCRG sanctioned to him as
per Annexure A5 has not been released so far. In that regard, it may
also noteworthy to mention that just prior to the completion of the
deputation period, the teacher had requested to join in his parent
institution and he was re-appointed in the University College,
Thiruvananthapuram with effect from 01.04.2007 as evident from
Annexure A6 dated 27.03.2007. Annexure A7 dated 31.03.2007 is the
order passed by the Principal of the College wherein he had undertaken
the FIP Programme. Hence there is no dispute that pursuant to
Annexures A7 and A8, the teacher concerned had joined duty in the
parent College concerned on 1.4.2007 F.N.
5. As mentioned hereinabove, the teacher concerned had died
on 10.04.2017. It is thereafter that the impugned Annexure A9
proceedings dated 15.10.2018 was issued by the Director of Collegiate
Education and the consequential impugned Annexure A10 proceedings
dated 26.10.2018 was also issued by the Principal of University College,
Thiruvananthapuram, directing the original applicant (who is the
widow of the deceased pensioner) that she is liable to pay an amount of
Rs.8,80,335/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum plus
Rs.20,000/- which are the liabilities towards salary and allowances
received by the teacher concerned during the period of deputation
under the FIP Programme as well as the contingency grant received by
him, purportedly on the ground that he has not successfully obtained
Ph.D. Degree, after completion of the FIP Programme. A perusal of
Annexure A9 proceedings dated 15.10.2018 would show that it is an
inter se communication between the Director of Collegiate Education
and Principal of the University College, Thiruvananthapuram and a
copy of the same is marked to the original applicant. Further, it
appears that after receipt of Annexure A9, the Principal of the
University College has issued the impugned Annexure A10 letter dated
26.10.2018 to the original applicant. It is common ground, it is not in
dispute that none of the authorities concerned afforded reasonable
opportunity of being heard either to the deceased pensioner/teacher or
his widow, the original applicant, before the issuance of the impugned
proceedings at Annexure A9 dated 15.10.2018 and Annexure A10 letter
dated 26.10.2018. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, had passed
the impugned Ext.P3 final order dated 06.08.2019 allowing the main
pleas in O.A.No.2210/2018 on the ground that the bond conditions at
Annexures A3 and A4 do not permit recovery of amount on the ground
that the candidate concerned had not successfully obtained Ph.D
Degree after completion of the FIP Programme and that the clauses in
those bond/agreement would only entail payment of an amount of
Rs.7,000/- as penalty only if the incumbent concerned does not
complete the course. Hence, it has been held by the Tribunal that the
impugned proceedings for recovery at Annexues A9 and A10 are liable
to be interfered with. Further, the Tribunal has also taken a view that
the amounts covered by Annexures A9 and A10 would at least be
treated as alleged liabilities and if the same is to be recovered from the
DCRG of the pensioner, then at best it could have been treated as a
liability fixation process envisaged in terms of Notes 2 and 3 of Rule 3
Part III KSR, in which case, the entire process of issuing show cause
notice to the pensioner/incumbent concerned after affording him a
reasonable opportunity of being heard should have been done and
thereafter the liability fixation process should have been duly
completed, within an outer time limit of three years from the date of
retirement of the pensioner, in view of the mandatory conditions in
Notes 2 and 3 of Rule 3 Part III KSR. In the instant case, the alleged
liability fixation process has not been completed by issuance of show
cause notice and hearing the teacher concerned/pensioner concerned
within a period of three years from the date of retirement and hence the
impugned proceedings for recovery from the DCRG amount is illegal
and ultra vires.
6. We have heard both sides and one of the contentions urged
by the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the
petitioners is that the reliance placed by the Tribunal in the impugned
Ext.P3 order on the judgment dated 25.8.2014 of this Court in
WP(C)No.884 of 2013 is not tenable or correct and that the State
authorities are entitled to succeed in view of the decision rendered by
the Apex Court in the case in Sant Longowal Institute of Engg. &
Technology v. Suresh Chandra Verma reported in [(2013) 10 SCC
411]
7. The main issue to be decided in this case is as to whether
the impugned Annexures A9 and A10 proceedings ordering to recover
the amounts covered therein from the DCRG of the deceased pensioner
is legally tenable or not. It is common ground that in the instant case
the teacher concerned had retired from service as early as on
31.03.2012 and later the teacher concerned had died on 10.4.2017. In
the instant case, the State authorities concerned do not have any case
that the proceedings as envisaged in the operative portion of Rule 3
Part III KSR had been taken in the instant case at any point of time.
Notes 2 and 3 appended under Rule 3 Part III KSR read as follows:
"Note 2.- The word 'pension' used in this rule does not
include death-cum-retirement gratuity. Liabilities fixed against
an employee [or pensioner] can be recovered from the
death-cum-retirement gratuity payable to him without the
departmental/judicial proceedings referred to in this rule, but
after giving the employee [or pensioner] concerned a reasonable
opportunity to explain.
Note 3.- The liabilities of an employee should be
quantified either before or after retirement and intimated to him
before retirement if possible or after retirement within a period
of three years on becoming pensioner. The liabilities of a
pensioner should be quantified and intimated to him."
8. It is by now well established that even without resort to the
proceedings envisaged in the operative portion of Rule 3, the
departmental authorities concerned can take steps to ascertain
liabilities of the employee/pensioner concerned, after affording
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the pensioner and this aspect
of the matter is clear from Note 2 appended to Rule 3 Part III KSR.
However, in such cases covered by Note 2 Rule 3 Part III KSR, the
statutory rule making authority has made a mandatory provision as per
Note 3 thereof that in such cases liability should have been duly and
lawfully finalised within an outer time limit of three years on the
incumbent concerned become a pensioner. In the instant case, the
statutory time limit of three years as envisaged in the mandatory
provision contained in Note 3 of Rule 3 Part III KSR has expired as
early as on 31.03.2015. It is thereafter that the pensioner/teacher
concerned had died on 10.04.2017. At no point of time either within
the outer time limit of three years or at any time before the issuance of
the impugned Annexure A9 proceedings dated 15.10.2018 and
Annexure A10 proceedings dated 26.10.2018, the State/departmental
authorities concerned has issued any show cause notice to the teacher
concerned for taking steps to ascertain the liability fixation process and
then to pass an order fixing the liability within the outer time limit as
mandated in Notes 2 and 3 of Rule 3 Part III KSR. Hence, on this
simple ground the petitioners are not legally entitled to recover the said
amount covered by Annexures A9 and A10 from the DCRG from the
deceased pensioner concerned. On this sole ground, the original
applicant is entitled to succeed and the Tribunal cannot be faulted in
any manner for having arrived at the said finding.
9. However, we would also examine some of the other
contentions raised by both sides. The bond conditions are contained in
page No.2 of Annexure A3 agreement dated 28.02.2005 and on page
No.2 of Annexure A4 supplemental agreement dated 02.02.2007
executed by the deceased teacher. The relevant conditions given on
page 2 of Annexure A3 original agreement dated 28.2.2005 are as
follows; (See pages 39 to 40 of this paper book).
"Whereas the government have agreed to pay the
bounden during the period of said deputation his full pay and
allowances subject to the terms and conditions contained in the
said order and these hereinafter appearing to which the
bounden has also agreed.
And whereas for the better protection of the government
the bounden has agreed to execute this bond with such
conditions as hereunder written.
"Now the condition of the above written obligation is that
in the event of the bounden failing to serve government for a
period of three years immediately and continuously after his
return to duty on completion of the course, the bounden shall
forthwith pay to the government on demand the amount
mentioned above together with interest thereon from the date of
demand at government rates for the time being in force on
government loans and in case the bounden fails to complete the
course successfully within the grace period, the bounden and
sureties shall pay to the government a penalty of Rs.7000/-
(seven thousand only) together with interest thereon at the rate
mentioned above unless the bounden successfully completes the
course at his own expense within two years from the date of
expiry the period of the deputation and upon payment of all
such sums the above written obligation shall be void and of no
effect otherwise this shall be and remain in full force and effect:
Provided further that the bounden here by aggress that
all sums found due to government under or by virtue of this
bond shall be recoverable from the bounden and his properties
both movable and immovable under the provision of the
revenue recovery act for the time being in force as though such
sums are arrears of land revenue and in such other manner as
the government may deem fit."
10. It may also be pertinent to refer to the relevant conditions
in Annexure A4 supplemental agreement dated 02.02.2007, which
reads as follows; (see the latter portion of internal page 2 of Annexure
A4 order at page 42 of this paper book).
"That in the principal Deed after the first recital
beginning with the words Government have in G.O.(Rt.)
No.285/2005/H.Edn. dated 21.2.2005 and ending with the
words "University of Kerala" the following shall be substituted
as second recital.
WHEREAS the Government have in G.O.(Rt.)
No.129/2007/H.Edn. Dated 23.1.2007 (which shall form part of
this Deed as if incorporated herein) extended the period of
deputation of the Bounden from 2.11.2006 to 31.3.2007 for the
purpose of completion of Ph.D Course under faculty
improvement programme of University Grants Commission in
the University of Kerala.
2. Modified as aforesaid the principal Deed shall be
and remain fully binding on the parties and of full force and
effect."
11. A perusal of Annexures A3 and A4 would make it clear that
in the event of the FIP Teacher failing to serve the Government for a
period of three years immediately and continuously after his return to
duty on completion of the course, he/she shall forthwith pay to the
Government on demand, the amount mentioned above together with
interest from the date of demand at Government rates for the time
being, in terms of the Government norms and further in case the
teacher on FIP fails to complete the course successfully within the grace
period, the bounden and the surety shall pay to the Government a
penalty of Rs.7000 together with interest thereon at the rates
mentioned above, unless the bounden successfully completes the
course at his own expense within two years from the date of expiry of
the period of deputation, etc. The additional condition given in
Annexure A4 supplemental agreement only stipulates that the above
said conditions in Annexure A3 would govern the extended period of
the FIP programme. The very same bond condition has been the
subject matter of consideration of this Court in the case in Kumari
Geetha S. v. State of Kerala and Ors. as per judgment dated
25.08.2014 in WP(C)No.884 of 2013. It may be pertinent to refer to
paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment of this Court in WP(C)No.884 of
2013, which read as follows;
"7. It is profitable to extract the relevant portion of
Ext.P3, which reads as follows:
"NOW THE ABOVE WRITTEN OBLIGATIONS IS THAT in
the event of the Bounden failing to serve the Christian
College, Kattakada for period of 3 years immediately and
continuously after his return to duty on completion of his
course the Bounden and Sureties shall forthwith pay to the
Government on demand the amounts referred to above
together with interest thereon at Government rates for the
time being in force on Government loans and in case the
Bounden fails to complete the course successfully within the
grace period the Bounden and sureties shall pay to the
Government a penalty of Rs.7,000/- (Seven Thousand
Only) together with interest at the rates mentioned above
unless the Bounden successfully completes the course at his
own expense within two years from the date of expiry of the
period of deputation and upon payment of all such sums
the above written obligation shall be void and of no effect
otherwise this shall be and remain in full force and effect."
8. What could be discerned from above is that the pay
and other allowances given to the petitioner could be
recovered by the Government only if the petitioner fails to
join duty within a period of 3 years from completion of the
course. The respondents have no case that the petitioner has
rejoined duty within the aforesaid period. However, if the
petitioner fails to complete the course successfully within the
grace period, it shall be duty of the petitioner to pay a sum of
7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) together with interest
at the rates specified therein. The respondents can quantify
the liability only in tune with the agreed terms in Ext.P3, and
the 2 nd respondent cannot go beyond the agreed terms in
the bond. Therefore, steps taken by the petitioner to recover
salary and other allowances owned by the petitioner during
the deputation period from the DCRG is unauthorised and
illegal. The same cannot be deducted from the DCRG."
12. A perusal of the above said judgment would make it clear
that relevant condition in the bond executed by the teacher concerned
in the said case in WP(C)No.884 of 2013 is similar and identical to that
as made out in Annexures A3 and A4 in the instant case. Hence this
Court, after hearing both sides, is in respectful agreement with the
views already rendered by this Court in the judgment in WP(C)No.884
of 2013. In the instant case, it is common ground that the teacher
concerned after completion of the FIP Programme had returned back
to the parent College and rejoined duty and had continued in service
for three years. Therefore, the first limb of the relevant condition of
Annexure A3 will not come into play for the simple reason that the said
clause will arise only if the incumbent/teacher concerned does not join
duty after completing the FIP Programme and so for a period of three
years thereafter. Hence at best only the second limb of Annexure A3
for payment of the penalty amount of Rs.7,000/- for not successfully
obtaining the Ph.D Degree alone will come into play in the instant case.
The learned Senior Government Pleader has made reference to
Annexure R2(c) appendix of the above said agreements, which are
stated to be in more general terms. Even going by the stand of the
Department, Annexure R2(c) is only an appendix to Annexure A3 and
A4 documents and there cannot be any doubt that the main agreements
are those contained in Annexures A3 and A4. The penalty amount
envisaged in the appendix is Rs.10,000/- which is reduced to
Rs.7000/- in Annexures A3 and A4. The exact factual contingencies
which justify the recovery of the full pay and allowances are explicitly
and precisely enumerated in Annexure A3 and therefore the said clause
in Annexure A3 as reiterated subsequently in Annexure A4 alone will
govern the field. Hence this Court does not find any cogent grounds to
deviate from the well considered view rendered by this Court in the
judgment in WP(C)No.884 of 2013 and the Tribunal cannot be faulted
for placing reliance on the said judgment of this Court in WP(C)No.884
of 2013.
13. In that regard the contention of the original applicant based
on clause 8.3 of Annexure R2(a) norms issued by the UGC would also
assume importance and relevance inasmuch as clause 8.3 specifically
envisages that if a Teacher Fellow fails to complete his/her
Ph.D/M.Phil. Programme and leaves it midway, he/she has to refund
the entire amount paid to him by the UGC during his/her Teacher
Fellowship.
14. The learned Senior Government Pleader placed reliance on
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case in Sant Longowal
Institute's case supra [(2013) 10 SCC 411]. A reading of the judgment
in Sant Longowal Institute's case supra [(2013) 10 SCC 411] would
make it clear that the teacher incumbent concerned was granted three
years study leave for the period from 24.7.1999 to 22.7.2002 and he
had joined back has Lecturer in November 2003 (see paragraph 2
thereof). The bond executed by the said teacher is extracted in
paragraph 7 of the said judgment and it was found that the said bond
conditions are quite vague and does not envisage a case of recovery
from the full pay and allowances paid to the teacher concerned, if he
does not subsequently secure the Ph.D. Degree. However, a reading of
paragraph 9 of the said decision would make it clear that later the
institute had amended its norms for bond conditions on 28.6.2002,
which appears to be before the expiry of the leave period of the teacher
concerned (which was upto 22.7.2002). Moreover, a reading of
paragraph 10 of the said judgment would also make it clear that the
explicit statutory rules had governed the field and reference to Rule 63
of the Rules are contained therein. Rule 63 of the said Rule considered
in paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sant Longowal
Institute's case supra [(2013) 10 SCC 411] would make it clear that
explicit provisions are provided in the said Rule for dealing with
contingency in question. The Apex Court after considering the facts of
the case found that though the bond conditions are vague, the partial
refund already effected from the salary of the teacher incumbent
concerned may not be interfered with and had also specifically ordered
that further balance amount yet to be recovered from the teacher need
not be recovered, taking into consideration the facts circumstances of
the case. In the instant case, the parties are fully regulated by the
conditions in Annexures A3 and A4 agreements.
15. Further, there are no provisions akin to Rule 63 of the Rules
considered in paragraph No.9 of the Sant Longowal Institute's case
supra [(2013) 10 SCC 411], in the present case. Rule 99 of Part I KSR
deals with study leave. The said Rule 99 of Part I KSR has been deleted
from the statute book with effect from 19.02.2007 as per Gazette
notification published on 22.2.2007. The omitted Rule 99 of Part I
KSR and the note thereunder read as follows;
"Rule 99. Leave may be granted to officers on such terms as the
Government may by general order prescribe to enable them to
study scientific, technical or similar problems or to undergo
special courses of instructions. The detailed rules framed under
this rule are given in Appendix-VI.
Note.- For rule regarding the grant of leave without allowance
for study purposes in the case of officers not in permanent
employ, see Rule 91."
16. The detailed norms and rules framed under Rule 99 are
given in Appendix VI of Part I KSR. Appendix VI deals with rules for
grant of study leave of person concerned. The said Appendix VI
contains altogether 21 Rules as well as Annexure A and A1 thereto. A
reading of Rule 1(3) of the norms in Appendix VI would make it clear
that study leave shall not be granted unless (i) the proposed course of
study or training shall be of definite advantage from the point of view
of public interest (ii) it is for prosecution studies in subjects other than
academic or literary subjects and ........ ..... Hence it can be seen that
Rule 1(3)(ii) of Appendix VI framed under Rule 99 specifically
mandates that the said study leaves covered by Rule 99 would come
into play only if it is for prosecution of studies in subjects other than
academic or literary subjects. In other words, it appears that if the
course is meant for Ph.D. or M.Phil. in academic or literary subjects,
then there is no question of invoking Rule 99 or Appendix VI framed
thereto. Further, Rule 9 of Appendix VI would make it clear that the
Government servant would refund the amount, only if any over
payment is made by the Government consequent to the failure of the
employer concerned to produce the required certificate of attendance
from the institution concerned. Rule 15 thereof deals with execution of
bond in terms of Annexure A and A1 attached to Appendix 6. Further,
a reading of the operative portion of Annexure A proforma agreement
framed under the above said Rule 15 would make it clear that the
liability to pay the amounts to the Government would occur only in
cases where the employee concerned resigns or retire from service
without returning to duty after expiry of the termination of the period
of study leave. The operative portion of Annexure A1 agreement is also
on the same lines. Rule 17 framed under Rule 99 of Part I KSR further
mandates that during study leave a Government servant shall draw
leave salary equal to the amount admissible during half pay leave under
Rule 93 Part I KSR. Going by the above said provisions, it is broadly
clear that the above said Rules contained in Rule 99 and Appendix VI
framed thereunder, may not have any application where the
prosecution of studies is meant to acquire a Ph.D. or M.Phil degree in
academic or literary subjects. That apart Rule 99 has been deleted
from the Statute Book with effect from 19.2.2007. Hence it can be seen
that the factual situation prevailing in the present case is substantially
different from the case considered in Sant Longowal Institute's
case supra [(2013) 10 SCC 411]. Moreover, even the Apex Court has
given certain equitable directions taking into consideration the peculiar
facts circumstances of the case dealt with hereinabove by ordering that
whatever has been recovered from the employee need not be refunded
to him and that amounts which are not by then recovered from the
teacher was ordered not to be recovered. In the light of these aspects,
this Court is of the considered view that the reliance placed by the
learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision rendered by the
Apex Court in Sant Longowal Institute's case supra [(2013) 10 SCC
411] may not have any application to the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
17. In the light of these aspects, we are constrained to take the
view that the contentions of the petitioners herein (respondents in the
OA) are not tenable or sustainable. The Tribunal cannot be faulted for
having taken the view as in the impugned final order at Ext.P3.
However, we order that the time limit stipulated for compliance with
the directions in the impugned Ext.P3 final order dated 6.8.2019 in
O.A.No.2210/2018 rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal
Thiruvananthapuram Bench will stand extended by a further period of
two months as last chance. Taking into consideration the fact that the
original applicant is a widow of the deceased pensioner who is waiting
for the due DCRG amounts for a very long time, we would expect that
the petitioners would ensure that steps would be immediately taken the
release the DCRG amounts due to her without any further delay.
With these observations and directions, the above original
petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI, JUDGE
dsn
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF OA NO.2210/2018 ALONG WITH
ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED
02.11.2004 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
COLLEGE.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO
(RT)NO.285/2005/H.EDN DATED 21.02.2005.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BOND DATED 28.02.2005
EXECUTED BY THE APPLICANT'S LATE HUSBAND IN
FAVOUR OF THE GOVERNMENT.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
DATED 02.02.2007 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE SAID
LATE SRI.V.A.SASEENDRA BABU AND THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER
DATED 15.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER
NO.A1/1331/2007/COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT DATED 27.03.2007.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2007
ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, SN COLLEGE, KOLLAM.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF TRANSFER OF
CHARGE.
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.F(3)
22387/2012/COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
DATED 15.10.2018.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.B3/1003/2017-
2018/UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DATED 26.10.2018.
ANNEXURE A11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED
29.04.2017.
ANNEXURE A12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF
TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE A13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RATION CARD ISSUED BY
THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE A14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARRIAGE INVITATION
LETTER OF THE APPLICANTS DAUGHTER- UMA
PARVATHY.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE
SECOND PETITIONER ALONG WITH ANNEXURES R2(A)
TO R2(F).
ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE TENTH PLAN GUIDELINES FOR
FACULTY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME.
ANNEXURE R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT NO.172/2009/H.EDN
DATED 07.02.2009.
ANNEXURE R2C TRUE COPY OF THE APPENDIX I OF THE BOND
EXECUTED BY APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE R2 D TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.F(3)/22387/2012/COLL.EDN. DATED
02.07.2012.
ANNEXURE R2 E TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.F(3)/22337/2012/COLL.EDN DATED 18.04.2015.
ANNEXURE R2 F TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED
21.04.2015.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
DATED 06.08.2019 IN OA NO.2210/2018.
EXHIBIT P4 FORM NO.I SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE
APPLICATION BY LATE SASEENDRA BABU.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIP LIABILITY STATEMENT OF
SHRI V.A.SASEENDRA BABU.
