V.KUMARAN Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to disburse the provident fund and retirement benefits due to the petitioner, to expedite the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and to disburse the balance subsistence allowance due to the petitioner for the period 10/2006 to 30.6.2006, forthwith.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was an employee of the 5th respondent, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. He entered the service of the 5 th respondent on 4.11.1968 and retired on 30.6.2008. While in service, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, alleging misappropriation. Consequently, the petitioner was kept under compulsory loss of pay leave from 1.11.2002 onwards, which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5705 of 2004. By Ext.P2 judgment, the impugned orders were quashed, without prejudice to the pending disciplinary proceedings. It was also directed that all consequential benefits, pursuant to quashing of the impugned orders will be granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended on 1.1.2003 pending enquiry and the subsistence allowance due to the petitioner was denied. The petitioner initially approached this Court and as directed by this Court, approached the 4 th respondent, who directed the 5 th respondent to pay the subsistence allowance due to the petitioner. Though the 5th respondent challenged the direction to pay subsistence allowance by filing W.P.(C) No.16528 of 2010, that writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.P4 judgment. Yet again the petitioner approached the 4th respondent complaining about the denial of subsistence allowance and as per Ext.P5 order dated 5.2.2010, the 5th respondent was directed to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner from 1/2003 to 10/2006. While so, the petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2008 and thereupon submitted Form No.19 claiming the Employees' Provident Funds dues. As per Ext.P6 communication, the 5th respondent informed the petitioner that the Enforcement Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation had returned the Form No.19 application stating that the petitioner's retirement date is in dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though a direction was issued by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission to take a decision on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner as evident from Ext.P7, a final decision on the disciplinary proceedings is yet to be taken. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition was filed.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 5th respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner was instrumental in delaying the finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings against him and disbursal of his retirement benefits. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent points out that the petitioner had approached the Civil Court and had obtained an interim order against finalsation of the disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the petitioner cannot allege that the 5th respondent had deliberately delayed finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on date, there is no legal proceeding pending, interdicting the 5 th respondent from completing the disciplinary proceedings.