VALSALA MILKA B. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court reference arises out of the order of reference dtd. 7/7/2022 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.139 of 2022 filed by the original appellant-writ petitioner, invoking the provisions under Sec. 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, against the judgment dtd. 14/12/2021 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.857 of 2019. During the pendency of the writ appeal, the original appellant died and her legal representatives are impleaded as supplemental appellants 2 to 4 by the order dtd. 27/11/2024.

(2.) The writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.857 of 2019, was one filed by the original appellant, who retired from service on 31/3/2011 while working as an Associate Professor in the Department of Physics, the Christian College, Kattakada, a college affiliated with the University of Kerala. The writ petition was filed, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 communication dtd. 12/2/2018 of the 2nd respondent Director of Collegiate Education; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse the Death-Cum- Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) due to her together with interest; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to issue a non-liability certificate (NLC) forthwith, so as to enable the 4th respondent District Treasury Officer to disburse the DCRG amount due to her.

(3.) In the writ petition, the 2nd respondent Director of Collegiate Education filed a counter affidavit dtd. 22/2/2019 opposing the reliefs sought for. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit dtd. 26/6/2019. By the judgment dtd. 14/12/2021 in W.P.(C)No.857 of 2019 and the connected matter, i.e., W.P.(C)No.12996 of 2019, the learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P6 communication dtd. 12/2/2018 of the 2nd respondent Director of Collegiate Education, on the ground that the demand made therein for refund of salary to the tune of Rs.5,75,258.00 together with interest at the rate of 12.5% is barred by limitation, in view of the period of limitation prescribed under Sec. 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the consequential reliefs sought for, i.e., a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse the DCRG amount due to the petitioner, together with interest; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to issue a non-liability certificate in respect of the petitioner to disburse the DCRG due to her were declined. Feeling aggrieved, the original appellant filed the writ appeal.