STATE OF KERALA Vs. PURUSHOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were the respondents in WP (C) No. 37488 of 2008 and the respondent herein was the petitioner therein. The Writ Petition was filed mainly with the prayers to quash Ext. P2 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to sanction the withheld DCRG amount of Rs.60,231/- and to disburse the same to the petitioner forthwith with interest at the rate of 18%.

(2.) The writ petitioner retired on superannuation on 31/08/2006 as a District Treasury Officer. While he was in service, he had applied for a loan to purchase a personal computer. Ext. P1 dated 11/12/2001 would reveal that the said loan was sanctioned. Admittedly, he did not avail the said sanctioned loan. However, till his retirement Ext. P1 order sanctioning the loan was not cancelled by the Government. On the wrong assumption that he had availed the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.45,000/- and had not repaid the same, a probable liability on that score was worked out as Rs.60,231/- and the same was withheld from his DCRG. All his attempts to get the said amount disbursed turned futile. It was in the said circumstances that he approached this Court by filing WP (C) No. 37488 of 2008.

(3.) Appellants 1 and 4 / respondents 1 and 4 had filed a counter - affidavit in the Writ Petition. The fact that the sanctioned loan as per Ext. P1 was not actually availed by the petitioner had not been disputed in the said counter - affidavit. At the same time, they attempted to put the blame on the petitioner for not taking appropriate steps for cancellation of Ext. P1. Respondents 2 and 3 had filed a separate counter - affidavit. They too, conceded the fact that the petitioner did not avail the sanctioned loan. It is a common case that Ext. P1 order sanctioning the loan was cancelled only on 22/06/2007 as per Ext. P6, i.e., about one year after the retirement of the petitioner. It was after considering the rival contentions and the admitted factual position that the amount sanctioned as per Ext. P1 was not actually availed by the petitioner that the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition directing the appellants / respondents to disburse the amount of DCRG withheld, viz. Rs.60,231/- together with simple interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 01/01/2007 to 10/02/2009 by way of compensation for the delayed payment of the DCRG. It was observed therein that it would be open to the Government to recover the interest thus ordered to be paid to the petitioner from the officers who were responsible for the illegal withholding of payment of DCRG on account of their failure to alert the Accountant General in time that no amount was due from the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred this Writ Appeal.