IMPORTANT POINTS
The recovery could be effected against a pensioner from the death-cum-retirement gratuity, if any amounts are due to the pensioner, irrespective of the expiry of the period on retirement. However, Ruling No.5 of Rule 116 of the KSR makes it clear that if the liabilities could not be assessed and fixed before the retirement of the Government employees, efforts should be made to assess and adjust the recoverable dues within a period of one year from the date of retirement of the Government employee concerned. Therefore, there is a clear duty cast upon the Government to pay the amount towards DCRG, if the liability is not fixed within one year from the date of retirement of the Government employee.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

This writ petition is filed by the Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department and other officials challenging Exhibit P1 order passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta in complaint No. 1137 of 2008 dated 23.12.2018, whereby the petitioners are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% for Rs.3,22,460/-from 30.04.2017, which was allegedly due to the first respondent namely one C. Vijayan,towards gratuity, less an amount of Rs.6,755/-.

2. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioners in the writ petition is that Lok Ayukta is not vested with powers under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 to order interest to any amount due towards DCRG or for that matter any other service Rules. It is also submitted that the delay occurred in the release of DCRG was only normal which was taken for completing the administrative procedures prior to the release of DCRG. That apart, it is submitted that as per notes (ii) and (iii) of Rule 3, Part III Kerala Service Rules, the Government is vested with powers to take action against the retired Government servant for recovering the death-cum retirement gratuity, if any amounts are due to the State Government. That apart, it is submitted that the Government employee has to submit a proposal for his retirement benefits prior to one year of his retirement i.e., in the case of respondent on 30.04.2006. However, the respondent submitted the proposal for retirement benefits only on 18.10.2006 i.e., after a lapse of 6 months which also delayed the release of non-liability certificate and the consequent payment of DCRG to the first respondent.

3. On the other hand, the first respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit and has contended that Lok Ayukta is vested with ample powers to direct interest to be paid and therefore, the petitioners have not made out any case for interference exercising discretionary jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. We have heard learned Senior Government Pleader, Shri. Tek Chand appearing for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the first respondent, and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

5. In fact, a review petition was filed by the petitioners against the order dated 23.12.2008, however, the same was also dismissed. The prime contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader is that Lok Ayukta is not vested with powers to order interest to the amount due, which argument is apparently based on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Bernad [2002 (3) KLT 254], wherein this Court held that as per the provisions of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, there is no power vested with the said authority to grant interest. It was further held that the powers conferred under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked for granting interest, since Lok Ayukta is not a civil court in contemplation of law. So far as the said contention is concerned, we are of the view that going by the scheme of Act, 1999 and the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Bernad(supra), Lok Ayukta is not vested with powers to order interest. However, this Court in Bernard itself has held that the Lok Ayukta is vested with powers to order compensation, while on adjudication it is found that there is delay and laches on the part of the officials in releasing the pensionary benefits. So also, learned Senior Government Pleader contended that by virtue of notes 2 and 3 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR, Government is vested with powers to initiate action to recover the amounts, if any, due to the Government from a pensioner and invited our attention to Rule 3 and its allied provisions, which read thus:

"3. The Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any