MADHAVAN PILLAI Vs. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a pensioner. He has retired from service on 30-4-1981 while working as a First Grade Executive Officer in the Panchayat Department and hence he became a pensioner on that date onwards. His grievance is that even though he has retired from service as early as on 30-4-1981, his Death cum Retirement Gratuity (hereinafter referred to as DCRG) was not given to him so far. The Accountant General of the State admitted the pensionary claims of the petitioner including the DCRG on 16-10-1981 and an amount of Rs.9,360/- was sanctioned to the petitioner subject to the production of non liability certificate. But in spite of the various representations submitted by the petitioner, the amount due to him under DCRG has not bean disbursed to him, is the case of the petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent as per his proceedings dated 27-1-1992, evidenced by Ext. P1 informed the petitioner for the first time that his liability is fixed as Rs.27,132.35 and called upon him to show cause why the amount should not be recovered from the DCRG benefits of the petitioner. Petitioner submitted his objection before the first respondent on 18-2 1992 denying his liability and requested the 1st respondent to furnish the extracts, of the audit objection on which the liability is fixed by the first respondent. He has also complained that the said liability is fixed without giving any notice to him.

(2.) Accordingly, the first respondent has informed the petitioner as per Ext. P2 letter that the Executive Officers of all the 13 Panchayats mentioned in Ext. P1 were directed to furnish the details of the audit objections on which the liability is fixed to the petitioner. There is a further direction to those Executive Officers to re-fix the liability of the petitioner after receiving the petitioner's remarks on those objections. But only 3 Executive Officers alone furnished the details of the audit objections to the petitioner, to which the petitioner had furnished his explanations also. But he has not been given any information by those Executive Officers or by the respondents intimating whether his explanation was accepted or not.

(3.) Thereafter on 30-10-1992, the petitioner received a copy of the letter issued by the first respondent to the Accountant General, Kerala State, Trivandrum evidenced by Ext. P3 stating that his liability is fixed at Rs.12,343.44 and to recover the said amount from the DCRG of the petitioner. But it was also stated in Ext. P3 that the amount to be recovered from the petitioner can be got refunded to him as and when the audit disallowances are cleared. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext. P3 communication and the liability fixed on him were arrived at without giving sufficient notice to him by the respondents and the same is against the provisions contained in Part.3 of K.S.R. The petitioner, therefore, challenges Ext. P3 proceedings of the first respondent in this Original Petition and prays for quashing the above order by a writ of certiorari as illegal and unjust and passed without jurisdiction. He also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to disburse DCRG amount to the petitioner with 18% interest thereon and for consequential reliefs.