IMPORTANT POINT
The factual scenario of the pensioner not actually drawing the pension amounts after its sanction, may not arise at all after the dramatic change of the very methodology of disbursal and release of pensionary amounts due to the pensioners concerned. At any rate, the above said Rule 135 of Part III KSR has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case.

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

The prayers in the afore captioned Original Petition (KAT) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows: (See page 9 of the paper book of this OP).

“..... ….. to set aside Exhibit P5 order dated 19.12.2018 in O.A.(Ekm)No.1001/2017 on the file of KAT, Addl.Bench, Ernakulam by allowing the above OP(KAT). ”

2. Heard Sri Antony Mukkath, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners/State of Kerala, Accountant General and Deputy Director of Panchayat in the OP/respondents in the OA and Sri K.S.Madhusoodanan, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent in the OP/sole applicant in the OA before the Tribunal.

3. The State of Kerala and others have filed the instant original petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned Ext.P5 final order dated 19.12.2018 rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.(Ekm.)No.1001/2017. The prayers in Ext.P1 OA(Ekm)No.1001/2017 filed by the deceased sole applicant in the Original Application, are as follows; (See page No.20 of this paper book).

“i. Call for Ann-A12 from 1st respondent and set aside the same;

ii. Call for Anns.A8 and A10 from 2nd respondent and set aside the same;

iii. Declare that the applicant is entitled to full pension from 1-9-2005, he having the qualifying service extended to 33 years 10 months and 11 days;

iv. Direct the respondents to disburse arrears of pension from 1-9-2005 to 26-12-2015 with interest;

v. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including the costs of this Original Application.”

4. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal has rendered impugned Ext.P5 final order dated 19.12.2018 in the above said OA (Ekm)No.1001/2017 and it was ordered that the 1st respondent therein (Government of Kerala in the Finance Department) was directed to reconsider the matter and issue appropriate orders under Rule 120 of Part III KSR and sanction pensionary benefits to the original applicant from the date of his retirement.

5. The original applicant was working as Panchayat Secretary in the Panchayat Department of the respondent State Government and while working as Secretary in the Puthige Grama Panchayat, Kasargod district, a vigilance case was registered against him, in which the competent Investigating Officer under the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau had completed the investigation and filed the requisite charge sheet before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode and the said court has taken cognizance of the offences against the original applicant, which led to the pendency of Calendar Case, C.C.No.49/2003 on the file of the said Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, in which the original applicant was arrayed as accused No.3 therein. During the pendency of the Vigilance Case at the FIR stage in V.C.No.9/2001 on the file of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode, the competent authority had ordered to suspend the original applicant from service as per order dated 04.02.2002 and was later reinstated only on 20.5.2003. Thereafter, he had retired from service consequent to superannuation on 31.08.2005. Presumably, on account of the fact that the above said vigilance case which was by then at the Calendar Case stage, it appears that the competent authorities concerned had not taken any steps even to regularise the suspension period of the original applicant. It is much later that the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, has rendered judgment dated 13.04.2010 in C.C.No.49/2003 whereby the original applicant herein, who is accused No.3 therein was acquitted by the said Court. Further, it appears that the competent authorities concerned were taking the stand that in view of the fact that the competent criminal court concerned, viz, the Court of the Enquir