SUGATHAN Vs. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a portion of the death cum retirement gratuity be withheld after retirement without initiating any disciplinary proceedings while in service, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

(2.) Petitioner retired from the service of the Cochin Devaswom Board as Devaswom Assistant Commissioner on 31.1.2003. An amount of Rs. 1,67,937/- was sanctioned to him towards death cum retirement gratuity, but was not disbursed for want of non liability certificate. Cochin Devaswom Board by its proceedings dated 15.4.2004 provisionally fixed Rs.30,603/- as the liability of the petitioner. Sanction was accorded by the Devaswom Board, vide order dated 14.6.2004 to disburse the death cum retirement gratuity withholding an amount of Rs.30,603/-. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and has approached this Court seeking a direction to the Devaswom Board to issue non liability certificate and to disburse the entire amount of death cum retirement gratuity with interest.

(3.) Devaswom Board has filed a statement on 1.3.2004 stating that without finalising the liability, balance amount of death cum retirement gratuity cannot be disbursed. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner contending that the Board has no legal right to withhold the death cum retirement gratuity since no departmental proceeding was initiated against him before retirement and no liability was fixed. Counsel took us through the various provisions of the Kerala Service Rules and also referred to the decisions of this Court in Director of Health Service v. Paul, 1992 (1) KLT 313 , Sreedharan Pillai v. State of Kerala, 1997 ILR (2) Ker. 468, and Gopinathan Nair v. State of Kerala, 1992 (1) KLT 859 . Counsel appearing for the Board referred to R.3(b) of Chap.1 of Part.3 Kerala Service Rules and contended that even after retirement departmental proceeding can be initiated against an employee. Reference was also made to the decision in Sosamma v. L.P. School, Parpacode, 2001 (2) KLT SN 33 , Jayarajan v. State of Kerala, 2001 (3) KLT 929 , and Clement Lopez v. State of Kerala, 1998 (2) KLT SN 62 . Counsel for the petitioner took us through the entire facts of the case and contended that the attempt to withhold part of the death cum retirement gratuity amount is mala fide and only to wreak vengeance on the petitioner.