DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION Vs. JOHN JUSTIN RAJAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original petition had been filed challenging the directions issued by the Tribunal directing the payment of interest on DCRG @ 9% from 09.07.2008 till the date of payment. The applicant/1st respondent herein retired from service as Headmaster on 31.03.2008. The Accountant General had sanctioned Rs. 3,01,785/- as DCRG on 17.01.2008. However the said payment was not made, alleging that some enquiry was being conducted against the applicant/1st respondent herein, regarding a work sanctioned by the Munnar Grama Panchayath. Ultimately, Non Liability Certificate had been issued on 03.05.2010, on the basis of which, DCRG was released. There was a delay of about two years in payment of the DCRG and during the pendency of the original application the applicant/1st respondent herein, sought for interest which was allowed by the Tribunal as stated above.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader submits that there is sufficient reason for denying the payment of DCRG as an enquiry was being conducted on the basis of the complaint given by the PTA president, regarding the work sanctioned by the Munnar Grama Panchayath. Reference is also made to judgment of this Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Indira C.C . [2017 (1) KHC 399 (DB)] to substantiate the contention that there was justification in delaying the payment.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/1st respondent. The primary contention is that DCRG was not paid, since there was a complaint from the former PTA president. The complaint was given on 11.09.2007. There was ample time for the Government to consider whether the applicant/1st respondent was responsible for the alleged complaint. Apparently, it was noticed that the work was done under the supervision of Assistant Executive Engineer, Local Self Government Department and all the vouchers are kept in the custody of the Panchayath. When the records were available, necessarily the Panchayath ought to have verified the allegations in the complaint then and there especially in respect of a person, who was about to retire from service on 31.03.2008. It clearly indicates that there was negligence on the part of the respondent officials/petitioners herein in not having considered the complaint within a reasonable time. When all the records were available with them, there was no difficulty to find out whether all the vouchers were produced by the applicant/1st respondent.