ACCOUNTANAT GENERAL Vs. P M JAMES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point that arises for decision in this appeal is, whether Dearness Allowance could be reckoned as part of "emoluments", as defined in Rule 2 (b) of the General provident Fund (Kerala) Rules. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. Aggrieved by the direction of the learned Single Judge to pay interest for the amount deposited by the writ petitioner in his Provident Fund account which exceeded the maximum of his pay, this Writ Appeal is filed. The brief facts of the case are the following:

(2.) THE respondent/writ petitioner was the Headmaster of a Government lower Primary School. He retired from service on 31-5-2000. When his provident Fund account was closed, he was paid Rs. 2,24,595. According to the computation of the respondent, he was entitled to get Rs. 2,53,764. There was deficit of an amount of Rs. 29,169 in the amount released to him from the provident Fund account. The appellants rejected the claim of the respondent stating that he has deposited monthly an amount which was in excess of the maximum of his pay and that he was not entitled to get interest on the said excess amount. In view of the above stand of the respondents, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge, relying on the definition of emoluments in Rule 2 (b) of the general Provident Fund (Kerala) Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), allowed the Writ Petition and directed the appellants to pay interest for the alleged excess amount deposited by the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Government Pleader, the learned Single Judge misunderstood Dearness Pay for Dearness Allowance and held that while computing the amount, Dearness Allowance also should be taken into account. If dearness Allowance is excluded from emoluments, the amount deposited by the respondent is in excess of the ceiling limit. Relying on Annexure A-1 memorandum of the Central Government, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that dearness Pay is Dearness Allowance converted as part of pay and the same cannot be treated as Dearness Allowance. So, he prayed for allowing the appeal.