IMPORTANT POINTS
Eight years had passed after the retirement of the respondent but gratuity amount was not paid and, therefore, there was a delay of eight years in payment of gratuity amount, which is payable with interest at the rate specified in Section 7(3A) of the Act. The Corporation sought to explain the delay of eight years before the Court saying that its financial condition was such that it was not in a position to pay gratuity amount to the respondent. However, considering the aforesaid mandatory provision of Section 7(3A) of the Act and considering the fact that more than eight years have elapsed since the retirement of the respondent, we are of the view that the High Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which also directed payment of interest to the respondent.

JUDGMENT :

Challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed in Complaint No.2198 of 2012 A dated 10.05.2016, by which, after considering the rival submissions, Lok Ayukta, at paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, ordered thus:

“8. With regard to the alleged liability of Rs.90,000/-it is pointed out by the complainant that the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvananthapuram had ordered attachment of Rs.10,000/-per month from her salary for 24 months at the Instance of a private party. The attachment had continued till the date of her retirement and therefore the respondents cannot withhold any amount from her DCRG on the basis of the above order passed by the said court. There is considerable force in the above contention.

9. It has been noticed already that the complainant retired from service on superannuation on April 30, 2011. Admittedly, no judicial or departmental proceedings were pending against her at the time of her retirement. No notice of any alleged liability due from the complainant was ever served on her before retirement. It is the admitted position that a liability certificate was issued to the complainant about one year after her retirement. But later it was conceded by the respondent himself that the said liability certificate was not in conformity with Rule 3 Note 2 of Part III KSR. A proper notice intimating the liability was issued to her only on March 12, 2014 as is seen admitted by the respondent himself in the additional statement. It is seen contended by the respondent in the additional statement that decision regarding payment of DCRG will be taken only when a reply is received to the notice dated March 12, 2014 issued to the complainant regarding the liability. Though a reply was sent by the complainant to the notice on May 10, 2014 with specific reference to each and every liability, no action whatsoever was taken. It is true that the respondent has thereafter released the other retiral benefits except the DCRG, of course, in obedience to the interim order passed by this Forum in September, 2014. The complainant is yet to receive her DCRG even though nearly five years have elapsed after her retirement. It cannot be believed that the audit department in the University could not find time to scrutinize and verify the accounts and finalise the case of the complainant in the light of her reply.

10. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances referred to above, I am satisfied that the respondent has to be directed to release the DCRG amount of Rs.7 lakhs to the complainant forthwith with 9% interest thereon with effect from August 1, 2011 till the date of payment. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

2. Assailing the said order, University of Kerala, has filed this writ petition mainly on the ground inter alia that Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to pass orders, which is adjudicatory in nature, and that Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to issue positive direction. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in State of Kerala v. Bernard [2002 (3) KLT 254], Sunayana v. Tahsildar, Tvm. and Others [2013 (1) KHC 836] and University of Kerala v. Parvathy Krishna [2014 (2) KLT 233]. University of Kerala has further contended that respondent No.1 is liable to pay Rs.31,87,701/-.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent contending, inter alia, that she retired from service on 30.04.2011. According to her, Ext.P1 is incorrect and the same cannot be accepted, in view of the provisions contained in Rule 3 Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, which contemplates that Government can recover from pension the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government in a departmental or judicial proceedings. Reliance has been placed on Shamsudeen v. Secretary to Government [2008 (4) KLT 133].

4. Placing reliance on a decision in State of Kerala and Others v. K.Ramakrishnan Nambiar [ILR 2007 (1) Kerala 566], conten