SREEDHARAN Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the additional plaintiffs in O.S.No.294/2004 before the Sub Court, Kollam. The suit was instituted by a retired employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short "KSEB"). During the pendency of the suit, she expired and the additional plaintiffs were brought on record as her legal representatives. Certain facts are not in dispute. The original plaintiff while working as Senior Superintendent under KSEB, retired from service on superannuation on 30.4.2000. Though she was entitled for pension, her entire pensionary claims have not been granted in view of the objection raised in an audit report. She availed leave without allowance for three spells during 1979 and 1980. So annual increments from 1996 were not paid and the pensionary claims were not settled. Therefore, she filed O.P.No.23404 of 2000 before this Court and by a judgment dated 4th March, 2003, the audit objection raised against her was quashed. In the said judgment, it was made clear that she was entitled to get arrears of salary and pension due to her and a further direction was given to release the same within a time frame. It was further made clear that the claim of the petitioner for interest for the said amount was kept open and she was given the liberty to agitate it before the appropriate civil court. In the light of the said verdict she filed this suit as O.S.No.297 of 2004 before the Principal Sub Court, Kollam claiming interest on the delayed payment as the defendants paid the amount due her only during 2003. But unfortunately her claim for interest at the rate of 9.5% was allowed only from 31.3.2004, the date of Ext. A3 notice till the date of the suit on 21.8.2004 .

(2.) The Electricity Board had taken a stand that the leave without allowance for 92 days were not sanctioned and hence increments from 1997 were not granted to the plaintiff. But in compliance of the Judgment in O.S.23404/2000 pension was refixed and pensionary benefits were disbursed within six months from the date of retirement and therefore she was not entitled to claim any interest for the said sum.

(3.) The trial court though granted interest for the delayed payment on the finding that the arrears to be paid would come within the sweep of the term debt, it was granted only from the date of Ext. A3 notice. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and decree, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants who are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff.