ROSAMMA A.V. Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a person who retired from the services of the 1st respondent University on 31.3.2010. At the time of retirement, she was holding the post of Assistant (Selection Grade). The service particulars of the petitioner, as narrated in the writ petition, would disclose that she was initially appointed as a Counter -cum -packer under the 1st respondent University on 26.5.1979. Thereafter, pursuant to a bifurcation of the said post, she was designated as Counter with effect from 18.6.1979. She was later granted revised pay in the said post with effect from 21.6.1979. Thereafter, she was appointed as a Clerical Assistant on 5.4.1986. She was later promoted as Assistant Grade -II with effect from 9.4.1991. She then obtained grade promotions in the post of Assistant and accordingly attained the First grade, Senior grade and Selection grade, on 25.6.2002, 20.7.2002 and 23.9.2006 respectively. As already noted, she was an Assistant in the Selection Grade when she retired from services on 31.3.2010.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is with regard to the sanctioning of pensionary benefits that are due to her on account of the services rendered under the 1st respondent University. While at the time of retirement, a portion of the pensionary benefits were withheld on account of Annexure R1(a) audit objection received by the 1st respondent University, the said audit objection was subsequently waived by the respondent University considering the fact that the audit objection pertained to events that had taken place almost 30 years ago. It was under these circumstances that Ext. P7 order came to be passed by the 1st respondent University granting sanction for the payment of the entire revised pension, without withholding any amount in respect of the audit objection that was raised against the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly received the entire benefits that were due to her as per her entitlement.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondent University, the University takes the stand that while it had earlier waived the audit objection noted by the additional 3rd respondent, the present action was pursuant to a fresh audit objection that was brought to its notice by the additional 3rd respondent. It is stated that the State Government had, through specific letters circulated to the respondent University, indicated that it would view actions by the Universities, in disregarding audit objections, seriously and that the University had to ensure that there would be no overlooking of audit objections brought to its notice. It was under these circumstances that when the objections were pointed out by the additional 3rd respondent, the respondent University was compelled to take heed of it and issue Ext. P10 order withholding amounts that were otherwise due to the petitioner.