Kerala High Court
G.Raghunathan vs Coffee Board on 28 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.4120 OF 2014(L)
PETITIONER:
G.RAGHUNATHAN
AGED 63 YEARS
(RETIRED AS JUNIOR LAISON OFFICER, COFFEE BOARD),
S/O.GANGADHARAN, RESIDING AT ANJALY COTTAGE, POOMALA POST,
SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD-673592.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.N.AJITH
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 COFFEE BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NO.1 DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
2 THE SECRETARY
COFFEE BOARD, NI.1, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.
3 THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND
INDUSTRY, NEW DELHI-110 001.
BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR-SC
BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH
BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.4120 OF 2014(L)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking
interest for the period when, allegedly, his retiral benefits
had been delayed by the 1st respondent - Coffee Board,
asserting that same is illegal and unlawful.
2. According to the petitioner, he ought to have got
the retiral benefits in August, 2008, but that same was
disbursed only in April, 2009, which is over eight months
later and that the respondents are, therefore, bound to pay
interest for the delayed payment appropriately.
The petitioner asserts that even according to the Coffee
Board, the time for payment of the retiral benefits is one
month from the date of retirement and that since he retired
on 29.08.2008, the payment should have been made at least
on 29.09.2008; and consequently, that the delay from then
until April, 2009 is unexplained and without any basis. He,
therefore, reiteratingly, prays that the respondents be
directed to pay interest for the delay in disbursing the retiral
benefits, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
3. In response to the afore submissions made on
WP(C).No.4120 OF 2014(L)
behalf of the petitioner by Sri.Neelakandan P.M., the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the Coffee Board -
Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, submitted that the petitioner's
claim for interest is not tenable because the delay is not
eight months, as asserted by him, but, at the best, only one
or two months. He submitted that his initial request for
payment of interest had been answered by the Secretary of
the Board, through Ext.P10, wherein, it has been stated that
there was no actual delay in payment of the retiral benefits
but the apparent delay was on account of the fact that
implementation of the sixth Central Pay Commission had
been sanctioned by the Government only in October, 2008.
The learned Standing Counsel added that since the
petitioner's claim had been validly rejected through Ext.P10,
the Coffee Board had no other option but to issue Ext.P15
rejecting his further representations on the same point. The
learned Standing Counsel, therefore, prays that this writ
petition be dismissed.
4. I have considered the afore submissions and have
also gone through the materials available on record.
WP(C).No.4120 OF 2014(L)
5. Even as per the averments of the petitioner, he
retired from the service of the 1 st respondent - Board on
29.08.2008 and asserts that he should have been paid his
retiral benefits within a period of one month thereafter.
6. However, when one goes through Ext.P10 - which
is the initial order rejecting the petitioner's claim for interest
- the respondents certainly say that there was some
unavoidable delay due to 'dearth of trained personnel', but
more for the reason that implementation of the sixth Pay
Commission was delayed on account of certain peculiar
circumstances involved. They have also explained that the
delay was not caused on account of any deliberate or
intentional attempt by any official of the Board and
settlement of the petitioner's retiral benefits had been made
at the earliest.
7. That said, it is pertinent that the petitioner himself
admits in the writ petition that the Central Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 were notified by the Central
Government on 29.08.2008, but were implemented by the
Board - with the approval of the Government - only on
WP(C).No.4120 OF 2014(L)
10.10.2008. In fact, he has produced the proceedings of the
Chairman of the 1st respondent - Board in substantiation as
Ext.P20 in the writ petition.
8. Obviously, therefore, going by these averments,
the maximum delay that the petitioner can allege is the
period between one month after Ext.P20 and the actual date
on which his retiral benefits had been paid. This works out
only to approximately four months; but I am of the view that
this delay is not unconscionable, so as to warrant an
interference by this Court, invoking the provisions of Article
226 of the Constitution of India. Further, there is nothing on
record to show that the 1st respondent was bound to make
payment of the retiral benefits to the petitioner within one
month from the date of his retirement, but even this is taken
to be accepted, I cannot find favour with the petitioner for
the reasons above.
9. This is more so because, even if it is assumed for
the sake of argument that the petitioner ought to have
received his retiral benefits in November - December 2008
itself - being one month after Sixth Pay Commission Report
WP(C).No.4120 OF 2014(L)
recommendations had been approved by the Government of
India, I cannot find competence for this Court to conclude
that the petitioner is entitled for interest for the delay of
about three or four months thereafter, especially since this
will involve an assessment of various factual and legal
aspects, including as to whether there has been any
deliberate delay on the part of the officials of the Board in
making payment only in April, 2009. It is now well settled
that this Court, while acting under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is proscribed from entering into an
assessment of disputes in the factual realm and I am
therefore, of the view that no further orders can be issued in
this writ petition.
In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is closed,
without any further orders.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
rp JUDGE
WP(C).No.4120 OF 2014(L)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.ADM/EB/1/2007-08/5263 ISSUED BY R2.
EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE
PETITIONER TO R2.
EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO
NO.DDE/KPT/EB/2008/494 ISSUED BY THE COFFEE BOARD
TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE
BY THE PETITIONER TO R1.
EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE
BY THE PETITIONER TO R1.
EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FIN/PEN/PPO
NO.3263/09/527 ISSUED BY THE COFFEE BOARD
EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT AUTHORISATION
NO.SA (P&G)/PP0.NO.3263/2009/558 ISSUED BY THE
COFFEE BOARD.
EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.ADM/EB.I/RTI-154/2009/49 ISSUED BY R2.
EXHIBIT P9 EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1.
EXHIBIT P10 EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.ADM/EB.I/2008/1886 FROM R2 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11 EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1.
EXHIBIT P12 EXHIBIT P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE
BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P13 EXHIBIT P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM
NO.3/2/2010-TFS OF R3.
EXHIBIT P14 EXHIBIT P14 : TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.3/2/2010-TFS
OF R3.
EXHIBIT P15 EXHIBIT P15 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.ADM/EB-1(R)/10-11/4662 ISSUED BY THE BOARD.
EXHIBIT P16 EXHIBIT P16 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM
R3.
EXHIBIT P17 EXHIBIT P17 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PENSION
WP(C).No.4120 OF 2014(L)
ADALATH COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P18 EXHIBIT P18 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.ADM/EB/1(R)/PPO-3263/3-14/1975 ISSUED BY R2.
EXHIBIT P19 EXHIBIT P19 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2.
EXHIBIT P20 EXHIBIT P20 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED
BY R1.
