Recovery from Death Cum Retirement Gratuity without following the prescribed procedures under the Kerala Service Rules is impermissible.

1. Heard Mr. P. B. Suresh Kumar for the appellant and Mr. V. Bhaskara Menon for the respondents.

2. The above appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in O. P. 10422 of 1997 dated 27th February 1997 dismissing the Original Petition filed by the appellant herein for a mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the death cum retirement benefit due to the appellant, with interest at 18 per cent per annum.

3. The appellant was a driver in the service of the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). He retired from service on 31st May 1994. According to the appellant, even after three years of his retirement, he was not disbursed his death cum retirement gratuity and that the same was withheld by the respondent for the reason that the Corporation sustained some loss in connection with a motor accident involving a vehicle owned by the Corporation and driven by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no liability, whatsoever, has been fixed by the Corporation against the appellant either before or after his retirement, and that he was never charge sheeted by the Corporation for any misconduct, whatsoever; nor has any departmental proceedings been initiated against him by the Corporation at any point of time. The appellant also submitted that the maximum time prescribed for recovery of liability, if any, of the appellant to the Corporation was also over. The appellant made several representations to the 2nd respondent requesting him to take appropriate action in the matter of disbursing his gratuity, but none of the representations have been considered by the 2nd respondent. The appellant, therefore, filed the Original Petition seeking appropriate direction to the respondents to disburse the death cum retirement gratuity due to him with interest.

4. The respondent Corporation filed a counter affidavit stating that the Corporation has disbursed all the pensionary benefits to the appellant except death cum retirement gratuity, and that the same was withheld by the Corporation on the ground that while he was an employee of the Corporation, he was involved in two accidents on 14th February 1990 and 9th October 1987, which led to proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam as O.P. (MV) No. 1057/90 and before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal as O.P. (MV) No. 314/90 respectively. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal passed an award on 31st August 1994 in O.P. (MV) 314/90 directing the Corporation to pay an amount of Rs. 28,350 with interest. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam passed an award in O.P. (MV) 1057 of 1990 on 27th January 1993 directing the Corporation to pay an amount of Rs. 8000 with interest. Our attention was also invited to the finding of the Accident Claims Tribunals that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the Corporation by the appellant herein. The learned counsel for the Corporation contended that the death cum retirement gratuity due to the appellant was withheld to realise a portion of the liability sustained to the Corporation due to the negligence of the appellant and that the Board of Directors of the Corporation have decided that the apportioned amount of the Tribunal Awards be realised from the employees found in fault, which was to be limited to the death cum retirement gratuity admissible to them. According to counsel for the Corporation, the Corporation has issued orders withholding the death cum retirement gratuity from the pensionary benefits payable to the appellant and that the appellant was a party to the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and the quantification of the liability was made by the Tribunal after hearing the appellant also. It is submitted that the Corporation can recover the award amount from the death cum retirement gratuity payable to the appellant by invokin