M.K. SAKTHIDHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had joined the service as Overseer in the Public Works Department in 1967 and later he was working as Assistant Engineer in the 3rd respondent-Thrissur Municipal Corporation, since 1979 till his date of retirement from service on 30.1.1999. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the withholding of an amount of Rs.1,50,820/- from the DCRG (Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity) amount of Rs. 1,86,416/- sanctioned to him.

(2.) It is stated in Ext.P1 proceedings dated 10.2.2000 issued by the 2nd respondent-Director of Municipal Administration that as per the proceedings dated 1.2.1999 referred to therein, the petitioner has been permitted to commute an amount of Rs.1,575/- from the sanctioned pension and that accordingly commuted value of pension amounting to Rs. 2,15,238/-, pension amount of Rs. 76,734/- as arrears from 1.2.1999 to 31.3.2000 and DCRG amount of Rs. 1,86,416/- has been duly sanctioned to him, thus totalling to an amount of Rs. 4,78,988/-. Earlier the respondents alleged as per Ext.P2 dated 26.4.2000 that there is an outstanding unsettled liability of Rs. 2,55,820/- pending due to non-finalisation of accounts of advance amount entrusted with the petitioner for carrying out various project works and accordingly the respondents deducted the said amount and disbursed only the balance amount from above said total sanctioned amount. The petitioner submitted representations and stated that all the necessary vouchers and accounts pertaining to the amounts entrusted with him for carrying out the works of the Municipality have been duly submitted to the authorities of the respondent Corporation and that there are no outstanding liabilities subsisting against the petitioner and that if the authorities have not actually finalised such accounts, after going through the vouchers and accounts submitted by the petitioner, then he should not be blamed for the delay on the part of the respondent Corporation's officials concerned in such non-finalisation of the accounts and that he should be paid all the amounts withheld from his retiral benefits. Since this was not acceded to by the respondent Corporation, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing a Writ Petition as O.P.No.15786/2000 praying for direction to issue the entire withheld pensionary benefits along with interest etc. This Court as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 29.6.2000, finally disposed of O.P.No.15786/2000 by holding that any alleged liability in respect of the retired employee has to be fixed expeditiously by the authorities concerned and accordingly directed the 2nd respondent therein, viz. Director of Municipalities, to take immediate steps to fix and determine the liabilities against the petitioner after affording him a reasonable opportunity within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It was further directed therein that if the liabilities are not fixed and determined as directed therein, then the person who is responsible for such delay will be liable to pay interest from the date of expiry of the said four months. While things stood so, instead of fixing and finally determining the liability in accordance with the provisions of Notes 2 and 3 of Rule 3 Part III KSR, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P6 notice dated 1.8.2000 ordering that revenue recovery proceedings will be taken against the petitioner for such alleged outstanding liabilities by virtue of the powers conferred under the Kerala Municipalities Act and Rules. So the petitioner was constrained to impugn the revenue recovery proceedings as per Ext.P6 herein by filing another Writ Petition as O.P.No. 24222/2000 before this Court. This Court, as per Ext.P7 judgment dated 23.8.2000, finally disposed of O.P.No. 24222/2000 by directing that the petitioner's representation against the impugned revenue recovery notice should be considered by the respondent Thrissur Municipality and necessary orders passed thereon, within two months and that while passing such orders, the judgment of this Court as per Ext.P5 herein, will have to be taken into consideration if it is applicable to the facts of the case and further ordered that until then, the impugned revenue recovery proceedings shall remain stayed. It appears that no further action has been taken in pursuance of the above said impugned revenue recovery notice as per Ext.P6 herein, as no pleadings in this regard are placed on record. The 2nd respondent-Director of Municipal Administration later passed Ext.P8 proceedings dated 7.11.2000 in purported compliance of Ext.P5 judgment by holding that the total outstanding liability of Rs.1,50,820/- is still pending to be cleared by the petitioner and that therefore the said amount shall be deducted from the DCRG amount of the petitioner and all the other balance amounts withheld from the retiral benefits were disbursed to him. It is challenging this withholding of the amount of Rs. 1,50,820/- as per the impugned Ext.P8 that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above Original Petition with the following prayers:

(3.) The main contention urged by the petitioner is that all the amounts which are found as liability as per Ext.P8 are based on irrelevant considerations and in violation of procedural propriety and without considering crucial relevant aspects. The petitioner would urge that items 1, 2 and 3 of the amounts tabulated in page No.2 of Ext.P8, are actually covered by the amounts referred to in Ext.P9, at page 62 of the paper book and that Ext.P9 is the official file noting and proceedings of the 3rd respondent Thrissur Municipal Corporation. These crucial aspects discernible from Ext.P9 have not been taken into account and if those relevant aspects were actually reckoned by the second and third respondents, then they would have been convinced that all the amounts in that regard were duly settled by the petitioner with necessary vouchers and that there are no outstanding liabilities pending against the petitioner in that regard. The petitioner would further urge that the amounts shown as item No.4 tabulated in page 2 of Ext.P8 are fully covered and accounted by Ext.P4 and that this crucial relevant aspect has not been taken into consideration by the respondents and that there are no outstanding liabilities in that regard. The petitioner further submits that the amounts shown as item No.8 of Ext.P8 is fully covered and accounted by Ext.P11 and this crucial aspect has not been taken into consideration and that there are no outstanding liabilities against the petitioner. It is common ground that the amounts shown as per items Nos.5, 6 and 7 of Ext.P8 have been acknowledged by the respondents themselves in Ext.P8 as not liabilities of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent-Director of Municipalities, who has fixed the alleged liabilities as per Ext.P8, has not chosen to file counter affidavit and has not rebutted the averments and contentions of the petitioner raised in this Writ Petition. The 3rd respondent-Thrissur Municipal Corporation has filed a counter affidavit dated 26.10.2006.