Kerala High Court
The Director Of Collegiate ... vs K.J.Mathew on 31 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 34121 OF 2014
PETITIONER:
DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. TEK CHAND V
RESPONDENT:
K.J.MATHEW
RETIRED LECTURER(SELECTION GRADE),KUNNUMURAM
HOUSE, C M C 27, CHERTHALA P O
BY ADV SRI.JOBY CYRIAC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 31.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..2..
JUDGMENT
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
This writ petition is preferred by the Director of
Collegiate Education, challenging Ext.P1 order passed by
the Kerala Lok Ayukta in complaint No.1452 of 2010-B.
2. Short facts leading to the filing of complaint
No.1452 of 2010-B are as follows:
The complainant, the respondent herein, was a
Lecturer (Selection Grade) in Sree Narayana College,
Cherthala, an aided college affiliated to the University of
Kerala and he retired from service on 31.03.2008.
According to the complainant, prior to his retirement, he
stopped contribution to the Provident Fund and submitted
an application for closure of Provident Fund Account. The
Director of Collegiate Education, vide proceedings dated
18.11.2008, authorized partial disbursement of an amount
of Rs.1,37,261/- from the Provident Fund Account of the
WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..3..
complainant. There was a missing credit of Rs.47,043/-
and the details of the missing credit were furnished. That
missing credit was for the month of March, 1997. The
said amount along with interest due thereon amounting to
Rs.1,29,943/- was also authorized to be paid to the
complainant vide proceedings dated 25.03.2009.
Accordingly, he filed Ext. P1 complaint before the Lok
Ayukta Lok contending that he has been paid interest only
till the date of his retirement and no interest up to the
date of actual payment of the amounts which stood to his
credit in the Provident Fund Account has been granted.
He claimed interest for the amount of Rs.1,37,261/-
disbursed vide proceedings dated 18.11.2008, from
31.03.2008, the date on which he retired, up to
18.11.2008 and on the subsequent amount disbursed vide
proceedings dated 25.03.2009, from 31.03.2008 till
25.03.2009.
3. On behalf of the Director of Collegiate Education,
WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..4..
it was contended that the Provident Fund closure
application in respect of the complainant was received in
the office of the Director of Collegiate Education on
31.12.2007 and the same had to be returned to the
Principal of the College for curing defect and the rectified
application was received only on 11.08.2008 and
therefore, as regards the interest on Rs.1,37,261/-, the
complainant would be entitled to interest only from
11.08.2008 to 18.11.2008 and in relation to the missing
credit of Rs.47,043/-, the details whereof were furnished
only on 12.12.2008, the complainant would be entitled to
interest on the amount of Rs.1,29,943/- only from
12.12.2008 till 25.03.2009.
4. On the basis of the contentions advanced by both
sides, the Lok Ayukta found that the complainant is
entitled for interest for the delay in closure of Provident
Fund account. The relevant portion of Ext.P1 order of the
Lok Ayukta reads as follows:
WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..5..
"2........................The contention advanced by the
Senior Government Pleader has necessarily to be
accepted and upheld as without details being
furnished to the Director of Collegiate Education,
the Director would not be able to sanction
disbursement of amounts that lie to the credit of the
complainant's P.F.A/c.
As regards the liability of the Government to pay
interest till the amount that lies in the P.F.A/c. to
the credit of the subscriber as being from the date
when it became payable under the Rules till the
date of actual payment it is not disputed before us in
the light of the decision of the Honourable High
Court of Kerala in Subraya v. State of Kerala
reported in 1999(2) KLT 362. Consequently,
therefore, the complainant shall be entitled to
interest at the rate of 8.75% on Rs.1,37,261/- from
11.08.2008 till 18.11.2008 and on the subsequent
disbursement of the missing credit with interest
namely Rs.1,29,943/- from 12.12.2008 till
25.03.2009 (date of Ext.P2). Held accordingly."
5. Ext.P1 order of the Lok Ayukta is challenged in
this writ petition on the ground that the delay in
sanctioning the amount in the credit of the complainant's
Provident Fund account is attributable to the complainant,
as well as the College. It is contended that the
complainant retired from service on 31.03.2008 and he
stopped his monthly subscription to the Provident Fund
WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..6..
account from 01.04.2007 onwards. He submitted his
closure application only on 23.11.2007 to the Principal of
the College. The University Statute stipulates that a
teacher who is due to retire from service can submit his
Provident Fund closure application well in advance of one
year prior to the date of retirement. The complainant
filed closure application after 7 months consequent on
stopping of monthly subscription to his Provident Fund
account and only 4 months before retirement. It is stated
that the Provident Fund application of the complainant
forwarded through the Principal was incomplete.
Schedules showing the pay fixation areas, DA arrears,
promotion arrears etc. were not produced along with the
application. Therefore, the closure application was
returned to the Principal vide letter dated 10.04.2008.
The proposal was resubmitted by the Principal rectifying
the defects partially, which was received in the office of
the Director of Collegiate Education on 11.08.2008.
WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..7..
Accordingly, the closure was allowed in part on
18.11.2008 and sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,37,261/-
with interest as on the date of retirement. Thereafter, on
receipt of the details of remaining missing credits from
the Principal of the College on 12.12.2008, the
application of the complainant was closed finally on
25.03.2009 and an amount of Rs.1,29,943/- was
sanctioned with interest as on the date of retirement of
the complainant. It is stated that the Provident Fund
amount was paid to the respondent in two instalments
only for the reason of submission of incomplete, incorrect
and partially rectified application.
6. Heard Sri.Tek Chand V., learned Senior
Government Pleader for the petitioner and Sri.Joby
Cyriac, learned counsel for the respondent.
7. Learned Senior Government Pleader contends that
the delay in disbursement of the amounts in the credit of
the complainant's Provident Fund account cannot be
WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..8..
attributed to the petitioner or the Government. The
Provident Fund application of the complainant forwarded
through the Principal was incomplete and therefore, it
was returned to the Principal vide letter dated 10.04.2008
and the rectified application was received only on
11.08.2008 and the missing credit details were furnished
only on 12.12.2008. It is contended by the learned Senior
Government Pleader that the delay in disbursement of the
amounts in the credit of the complainant's Provident Fund
account was due to furnishing of incorrect, incomplete
and partially rectified application as well as non
production of sufficient documents.
8. Sri.Joby Cyriac, learned counsel for the
complainant, on the other hand, contends that there is no
mandate in the University Statutes that the provident fund
closure application has to be submitted one year prior to
the date of retirement and the delay cannot be attributed
to the complainant and the amount becomes payable on
WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..9..
his retirement from service.
9. We find that the delay in disbursement of the
amounts standing to the credit of the complainant in the
Provident Fund Account was due to the time taken for
rectifying defects in the closure application and for
verifying the proposal. The Principal of the college is not a
party before the Lok Ayukta. The delay has been properly
explained by the Director of Collegiate Education and the
Lok Ayukta has rightly found that without details being
furnished to the Director of Collegiate Education, the
Director would not be able to sanction disbursement of
amounts that lies to the credit of the Provident Fund
account. We also note that, there is no finding by the Lok
Ayukta that the complainant sustained injustice or undue
hardship in consequence of maladministration on the part
of the petitioner. Section 2(k) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta
Act, 1999 defines "maladministration" to mean action
taken or purporting to have been taken in exercise of
WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..10..
administrative function in any case where such action or
the administrative procedure was unreasonable, unjust,
oppressive or improperly discriminatory or that there was
willful negligence or undue delay in taking such action. In
the absence of any finding regarding maladministration
on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner or the
Government cannot be mulcted with liability to pay
interest. Accordingly, the order of the Lok Ayukta is set
aside.
Writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
spc/
WP(C) NO. 34121/2014 ..11..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34121/2014
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE LOK AYUKTHA
DTD 3/9/2014 IN COMPLAINT NO 1452/10
