KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION HEAD OFFICE,VELLAYAMBALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Vs. KERALA LOK AYUKTA LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Kerala Financial Corporation is the petitioner in the instant writ petition, which impugns Ext.P14 report/order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta. By the said report, the Lok Ayukta, acting on a complaint by the second and third respondents in the writ petition, found that the Financial Corporation had earlier taken a decision for adopting a Pension Scheme for employees, which decision had received the approval of the Government of Kerala. Thereafter, when the Government of Kerala remitted the matter back to the Financial Corporation for the purpose of notifying the regulations in accordance with Section 48 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, the Corporation reassessed its financial exposure in terms of the draft regulation, and finding that the Corporation would have to make a one time contribution of Rs. 3.63 Crores to the Pension Fund, as against the amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs that was earlier assessed, the Corporation resolved by Board Resolution dated 10.5.2002 (Ext.P10), not to go ahead with the Pension Scheme. The Lok Ayukta was of the view that, since the Financial Corporation was not against the implementation of the Pension Scheme to the employees of the Corporation, and only wanted to defer the decision to a later stage, and the decision that was taken to grant pension had the approval of the State Government, the Corporation could not now turn around and deny the complainant and other similarly situated employees, the benefit of the pension scheme. On the said reasoning, the Lok Ayukta directed the redressal of the grievance of the petitioner and similarly situated officers, who retired from the office of the Corporation, by implementing, within three months from the date of the report of the Lok Ayukta, the Pension Scheme that had received the approval of the State Government.

(2.) In the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner Financial Corporation is essentially that, the report/order of the Lok Ayukta, to the extent it directs implementation of the Pension Scheme, under circumstances where there is no finding in the report/order as regards any mal-administration on the part of the petitioner Corporation, is vitiated by a lack of jurisdiction in the Lok Ayukta to pass such an order. It is further pointed out that, the Lok Ayukta is not, at any rate, vested with the power to adjudicate upon a legal issue and issue any positive recommendation to implement the Pension Scheme, that too within a time frame. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in George v. Saralakumari, (2007) 4 KerLT 924 followed by Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram and Others v. Abida Beevi and Another,2016 2 KHC 537 as also Sudha Devi.K v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and others,2017 2 KHC 850. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also point out that there was inordinate delay on the part of the complainants in approaching the Lok Ayukta in 2011, aggrieved by the decision of the Board, dated 10.5.200 It is further stated that, although there is a power in the Lok Ayukta to condone the delay beyond the period of five years, the said power had to be exercised for valid reasons, which in the instant case did not exist.

(3.) Per contra, Sri. P.B. Krishnan, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would point out that Ext.P14 report/order of the Lok Ayukta discusses those aspects that would point to a suggestion of mal-administration on the part of the petitioner Corporation, and to that extent it cannot be stated that there was no finding of maladministration as against the petitioner Corporation in the order of the Lok Ayukta. On the merits of the case before the Lok Ayukta, it is contended that, the petitioner Corporation had, through the decision taken for implementation of a pension scheme, and its action of forwarding the same to the State Government for its approval and thereafter obtaining the approval of the State Government, virtually initiated the proceedings contemplated under Section 48 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 with regard to the power of the Board to make regulations in terms of the Act, especially with regard to establishment and maintenance of provident fund or other benefit funds for employees of the Corporation. It is stated that, notwithstanding that the Corporation did not, thereafter, comply with the specific provision of Section 48(3) of the Act and S.48 (A) of the Act dealing with the laying of rules and regulations before the State legislature, the petitioner Corporation was at any rate estopped from modifying their earlier decision to introduce the pension fund. It is also contended, based on reference to the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 read with the Employees provident Funds Scheme, 1952 as also the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, that the petitioner Corporation is one that obtained an exemption as envisaged under Section 17 of the Employees Provident Funds Act, on the finding that they were providing better benefits in terms of Provident Fund and Pension to their employees, in comparison to what the employees would have otherwise obtained under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, and the Schemes framed thereunder, and hence, it was not open to the Corporation to thereafter withdraw from its decision to introduce a Pension Fund for the benefit of its employees.