NARAYANA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2004, while he was working as Secretary of Aruvappulam Grama Panchayat in Pathanamthitta District. THE petitioner had earlier served as Secretary in Perumvembu Grama Panchayat in Palakkad District during the period from 26.3.2002 to 10.6.2002. Alleging that while working as Secretary in Perumvembu Grama Panchayat he had committed defalcation and misappropriation of public funds, disciplinary action was initiated against him by issuing Ext.P1 memo of charges and statement of allegations of mis-conduct. After the memo of charges was served, an Enquiry Officer was also appointed. It was in such circumstances that the petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation.

(2.) UPON retirement, the competent authority sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,275/- as provisional pension to the petitioner in terms of rule 3A of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. After such provisional pension was sanctioned, the pay of the petitioner was revised and refixed as can be seen from Ext.P4 proceedings dated 1.6.2009 issued by the Deputy Director of Panchayats. This writ petition is filed mainly seeking a revision of the provisional pension pursuant to the pay revision granted to him with effect from 1.1.2011. It is contended that under rule 3A of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, payment of Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity alone is prohibited, that the rule contemplates payment of provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension admissible under the rules, that the petitioner has been sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,30,785/- as gratuity but in view of the statutory provisions it has not been paid, that the amount alleged to have been defalcated and misappropriated by the petitioner is only Rs.90820/- and therefore, there is no reason why the provisional pension should not be commensurate with the amount of pension which he is entitled to receive under the rules, having regard to the pay revision effected by Ext.P4 order dated 1.6.2009. Reliance is also placed on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Sreepath Bhatt v. Tahsildar [2004 3 KLT S.N.17 (Case No.22)] in support of the said contention.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Rule 3A of part III of Kerala Service Rules relied on the learned counsel on both sides reads as follows: