The Commissioner For Rural ... vs V.K. Anil Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 9868 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
                               &
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
 WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944
                    WP(C) NO. 40715 OF 2016
PETITIONERS:

    1      THE COMMISSIONER,RURAL DEVELOPMENT
           COMMISSIONERATE, SWARAJ BHAWAN,
           NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-03.

    2      THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
           LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
           GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

    3      THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT
           OFFICER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
           KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD- 678 702.

           BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. TEKCHAND
RESPONDENTS:

    1      V.K. ANIL KUMAR
           "BHARATHEESWARAM - 3',
           POORNIMA LANE, KOCHAR ROAD,
           SASTHAMANGALAM P.O.,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

    2      THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA,
           OFFICE OF THE LOK AYUKTA,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 033.

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM
           SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR


     THIS WRIT PETITION      (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP       FOR
ADMISSION ON 31.08.2022,     THE COURT ON THE SAME        DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
  W.P(C).40715/2016
                                 2



                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 31st day of August, 2022

Shaji P. Chaly, J

The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioners

seeking to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,

order or direction to quash Exhibit P4 order passed by the Upa

LokAyukta - the 2nd respondent, directing the petitioner to pay

interest at the rate of 9% to the delayed payment of DCRG.

2. Brief material facts necessary for disposal of the writ

petition are as follows:

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by Upa

LokAyukta - the 2nd Respondent, in a complaint filed by the 1 st

respondent, directing payment of interest at the rate of 9% per

annum on the amount of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity to be

paid to the 1st respondent for delayed payment. The 1st

respondent filed a complaint before the 2nd respondent seeking

disbursement of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity with interest

for delayed payment and to issue a fresh Non Liability Certificate.

The petitioners submitted a statement before the 2 nd respondent W.P(C).40715/2016

stating that Non Liability Certificate has already been issued on

29.09.2014 and forwarded to the Treasury Officer, Pension

Payment Treasury, Thiruvananthapuram. Since the Non Liability

Certificate was found missing in the office of Treasury, the 2 nd

respondent directed issuance of fresh Non Liability Certificate

and the 1st petitioner has issued fresh Non Liability Certificate

and submitted an action taken report before the 2nd respondent.

On the basis of the fresh Non Liability Certificate, the 1 st

respondent was paid his retirement benefits. The second

respondent passed Exhibit P4 order directing payment of

interest on delayed payment from 01.08.2014 till date of

payment ie., 26th September, 2015. The direction for payment of

interest is illegal as there is no culpable delay in disbursing the

retirement benefits on the part of the petitioners, is the

contention. Therefore, according to the petitioners, Exhibit P4

order is illegal and arbitrary, liable to be interfered with.

3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 1 st

respondent/complainant refuting the contentions raised in the

writ petition and supporting the findings rendered by the Upa

LokAyukta. According to the 1st respondent, there was no W.P(C).40715/2016

adverse proceedings against the 1st respondent when he retired

from service on 31.5.2013. However, there was considerable and

inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners in processing the

Non Liability Certificate and release of the Death-cum-

Retirement Gratuity.

4. We have heard learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.

V. Tekchand, and learned counsel for the 1st respondent Sri.

Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer and perused the pleadings and

material on record.

5. The sole question emerges for consideration is whether

any interference is required to Exhibit P4 impugned order.

6. After elaborately considering the rival submissions made

by the parties, the Upa LokAyukta has arrived at the following

conclusions:

"6. Significantly, Assistant Development Commissioner (General), Malappuram has not been impleaded in this complaint. It is true that the complainant in his replication statement has asserted that he had submitted his pension papers in the office of respondent No.3 in time for onward transmission. But, he has not produced any evidence in support of the above contention. The fact that the Accountant General (A&E) had sanctioned the pensionary benefits to the complainant by Ext.P2 order only in June, 2014 will show that there was delay either in submission or W.P(C).40715/2016

onward transmission of the pension papers. In the absence of any substantive material we are not in a position to hold either respondent No.1/3 or the Assistant Development Commissioner (General) responsible for the entire period of delay.

7. However, the fact remains that respondents1 and 3 were not diligent enough to ensure early release of the pensionary benefits to the complainant even after issue of Ext.P2 Order by the Accountant General. Admittedly no departmental or judicial proceedings were pending against the complainant during his service tenure. He, had been working as Court Officer in the Office of the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram right from January 2010 till his retirement in May 2013. Office of the Ombudsman had issued Non Liability Certificate in June, 2016 itself. Therefore, it is apparent that release of DCRG was delayed unnecessarily and without any justifiable reason even after issue of Ext.P2 Order by the Accountant General (A&E) in June 2014. It is evident from the respective statements filed by respondents 1 and 3 that they are trying to put blame on each other or on the Assistant Development Commissioner in updating the service details of the complainant in his Service Book. Apparently DCRG was released to the complainant on September 26, 2015 only because of the interim order passed by this Forum on August 4, 2015.

8. In Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa V. G.C.Roy [(1992) 1 SCC 508] their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that a person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name; be W.P(C).40715/2016

it interest, compensation or damages. In view of the above dictum laid down by the apex court, I am satisfied that respondents 1 and 2 are liable to reimburse Rs.30,000/-to the complainant.

9. Having carefully perused the entire materials available on record and the contentions raised in the written statements filed by respondents 1 and 3, we are satisfied that the complainant is entitled to get interest on the amount of DCRG at the rate of 9% per annum from August 1, 2014 till the date of payment, i.e. September 26, 2015. Ordered accordingly. It is made clear that the amount so paid can be recovered by the Government from the officer/officers concerned, who was/were responsible for processing the pension papers.

Interest shall be paid by the respondents as directed above within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. An Action Taken Report shall be filed before this Forum on or before September 9, 2016. Call on 09.09.2016."

7. After going through the pleadings put forth by the

petitioners, the documents and the rival submissions made

across the Bar, we are of the considered opinion that no manner

of delay or laches can be attributed on the part of the 1 st

respondent in submitting the pension papers, thus enabling the

petitioners to process the same and release the pensionary

benefits and Death-cum-Retirement gratuity at the earliest

possible time from the date of retirement. W.P(C).40715/2016

8. Here is a case where the petitioner has retired from the

service as early as on 31.5.2013. However, the DCRG was

ultimately released only on 25.9.2015. But fact remains the Upa

LokAyukta after appreciating the rival submissions has arrived at

a finding that interest @ 9% need be paid only from 1.8.2014 till

the date of payment ie., 25.9.2015. This may be possible, for the

reason that there was some defect to the Non Liability

Certificate issued and the consequent delay occurred in issuing a

fresh one. Anyhow, we are of the view, the delay occurred

therein also is not attributable to the 1st respondent.

9. Therefore in our considered opinion, the order passed by

the Upa LokAyukta can only be viewed as fair, legal and

absolutely justifiable, in view of the enormous and unexplained

delay in releasing the Death cum-Retirement Gratuity. It is a well

settled position in law that retiral benefits shall be released to

the pensioner at the earliest possible from his retirement. At

the most, a three months period can be said to be reasonable for

release of the pensionary benefits. Here is a case where more

than two years have taken to pay the pensionary benefits after

the retirement of the 1st respondent on 31.5.2013. W.P(C).40715/2016

10. That being the situation, we are of the definite and

considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case

of arbitrariness, illegality or other legal infirmities justifying

interference of this Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India. Needless to say, the writ petition fails,

accordingly, it is dismissed.

Sd/-

S. Manikumar, Chief Justice

Sd/-

Shaji P. Chaly, Judge sou.

W.P(C).40715/2016

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40715/2016

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.77/2015 FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT.P2        TRUE   COPY    OF    THE   ORDER   DATED
                  04.08.2015   IN    COMPLAINT  NO.77/2015
                  PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT.P3        TRUE COPY OF THE ACTION TAKEN REPORT
                  SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER
                  BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT.P4        TRUE   COPY    OF    THE   ORDER   DATED
                  11.07.2016   IN    COMPLAINT  NO.77/2015
                  PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT.P5        TRUE COPY OF THE INWARD REGISTER OF
                  THE   PENSION     PAYMENT      TREASURE,
                  THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R1(a)          TRUE    COPY    OF    THE    ORDER    DATED

29.12.2012 PROMOTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND POSTING AT TIRUR IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.PR.2101422656/P-9/1/1014227922 DATED 13.6.2014 OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E).

EXHIBIT R1(c)          TRUE   COPY    OF   THE   NON     LIABILITY
                       CERTIFICATE ISSUED      FROM THE OFFICER
                       OF   THE   OMBUDSMAN    FOR    LOCAL   SELF

GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 25.1.2010 TO 31.5.2013 IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A2/1761/14-

15 DATED 21.9.2014 OF THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT R1(e)          TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
                       16.3.2011    ISSUED    BY    THE    HON'BLE
                       OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
                       INSTITUTIONS JUSTICE M.R. HARIHARAN
 W.P(C).40715/2016


EXHIBIT R1(f)       TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
                    31.5.2013   ISSUED   BY   THE   HON'BLE
                    OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
                    INSTITUTIONS JUSTICE M.N. KRISHNAN