Recovery from DCRG and pension arrears must adhere to prescribed procedures under the Kerala Service Rules and principles of natural justice, including notice and quantification of liabilities.

C.T. Ravikumar, J.

The petitioner's husband died in harness on 2.7.1997 while working: as a conductor under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Thereupon, the petitioner was given compassionate appointment by the first respondent. This writ petition has been filed mainly challenging the recovery effected by the respondents from the death-cum-retirement gratuity payable to the petitioner on account of the death of her husband and also from the pension arrears, under different heads. After the death of the petitioner's husband, the DCRG and other benefits payable were admitted as per Ext. P1 dated 9.4.1999. As per Ext. P1, an amount of Rs. 25,620/- was admitted towards the DCRG, but, it is stated therein that the entire admitted DCRG, would be adjusted towards the liability of the deceased-employee mentioned specifically therein. The heads of recovery have been shown thereunder as excess pay recovery, funeral expenses, monetary value of increment bar, short remittance of Co-operative society dues. It is submitted that talking into account the fact that the amount due to the Co-operative society from the deceased viz., Rs. 5253/- was paid by the petitioner herein to the Co-operative Society, the said amount was subsequently returned to the petitioner. Ext. P1 would also reveal that it was proposed to adjust, rather, recover an amount of Rs. 29.864/- from the pension arrears of the deceased payable to the petitioner. Ext. P2 would reveal that the amount thus proposed to be adjusted from the DCRG and pension arrears were, in fact, adjusted in terms of Ext. P1 from the DCRG as also from the pension arrears. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid action on the part of the respondents that this Writ Petition has been filed.

2. No counter-affidavit has been filed in this writ petition. The specific contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not served with any notice for the purpose of effecting recovery from the DCRG. That apart, it is specifically stated that no consent was also given for that purpose. In short, according to the petitioner, in the aforesaid circumstances, no recovery could have been effected from the DCRG admitted as per Ext. P1. As already noticed, certain amounts were recovered from the DCRG on the ground of excess recovery. Under what circumstances the respondents have taken such a decision to effect recovery was also not let known to the petitioner at any time, prior to the recovery. There is nothing on record to show that recovery ordered to be made was towards legally recoverable amount ascertained, in accordance with the prescribed procedures. The details with respect to monetary value of increment bar and short remittance were also not available. Whether the punishment of increment bar was imposed on the deceased husband of the petitioner while he was in service and under what circumstances the said punishment could not be implemented are also hot specifically stated in Ext. P1. At any rate, in respect of the said subject, no other proceedings have been communicated to the petitioner. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents to support the recovery effected from the DCRG admitted as per Ext. P1 under the different heads specifically mentioned above. The most disheartened aspect is that even after paying an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards the funeral expenses of the deceased husband, that amount was also recovered from the DCRG The petitioner points out that despite the specific contention raised in the writ petition: that no notice was served on the petitioner even before effecting recovery from the DCRG, the respondents have not chosen to file a counter-affidavit refuting the claims and contentions of the petitioner. Relying on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Badarudeen Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Another it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that recovery could be effected from the DCRG admitted to an employee only in t