GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND OTHERS Vs. PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the decree and judgment dated 28.08.2008 in A.S. No. 80/2004 of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda in O.S. No. 2118/2002 of the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for the grant of compensation/damages on account of the interest loss occasioned by him due to the non release of retirement benefits in time based on the decision drawn in State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair reported in 1985 KLT 86. The case is that the plaintiff retired from the service on 31.03.2001, but his pensionary benefits were released only on 25.05.2002, after the lapse of one year and 55 days. As per the relevant Rules, it has to be released and disbursed within a period of two months from the date of retirement and hence the suit. The suit was decreed by the trial court against the defendants 1 to 4 granting a decree of recovery of Rs. 23,187/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization jointly and severally and also passed a decree against the fifth defendant granting a decree of recovery of Rs. 54,103/- and interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment in O.S. No. 2118/2002 of the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda, the defendants 1 to 4 preferred A.S. No. 80/2004 before the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. Later on, the fifth defendant came up with a cross appeal and the first appellate court passed a decree on hearing both the parties confirming the decree and judgment of the lower court by its decree and judgment dated 28.08.2008 by dismissing both the appeals, against which this second appeal preferred by the defendants 1 to 4 in so far as it is against them.

(2.) As far as the defendants 1 to 4 are concerned, an amount of Rs. 23,187/- with the liability of interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till its realization was granted to the plaintiff and the second appeal is focused against the said part of the decree and judgment alone by the defendants 1 to 4.

(3.) The question mainly mooted by defendants 1 to 4 is with respect to the application of Rule 110 and 115 of the Kerala Service Rules - Part III. According to the appellants, it was not considered properly either by the trial court or by the appellate court and there is total failure to consider the legal impact and application of these two provisions by the trial court as well as the first appellate court. It was also brought to the notice of this court that there is failure on the part of the trial court as well as the first appellate court in considering the question of contribution made by the plaintiff causing delay in the process of disbursement of pensionary benefits.