2021 Supreme(Ker) 353

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly, JJ.
Director of Health Services Thiruvananthapuram and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
J. Remadevi and ors. – Respondents
WP(C).No.6211 OF 2011(B)
Decided On : 22-02-2021

The power of review is a creature of the statute and no court or quasi- judicial body or administrative authority can review its judgment or order or decision unless it is legally empowered to do so.

Headnote:

WRIT PETITION - QUASHING OF ORDERS - INTEREST ON PENSION - VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT - APPLICATION FOR CLOSURE OF GPF - REVIEW PETITION - POWER OF REVIEW - JURISDICTION - KERALA LOK AYUKTA ACT, 1999 - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant, a Junior Public Health Nurse, entered service in the Health Department in 1974 and continued till 06.06.1995. Thereafter, she was unauthorizedly absent without leave or application for voluntary retirement. Disciplinary action was not taken against her due to lack of proper communication from the Medical Officer. The complainant submitted an application for closure of General Provident Fund (GPF) on 27.05.2004. The Accountant General (A&E), Kerala, sanctioned GPF vide order dated 11.11.2005, based on the actual date of retirement i.e. 30.06.2000. The complainant disputed the amount and claimed a sum of Rs.36,063/- was due to her, in addition to Rs.1,48,529/- paid to her on 05.11.2005. Lok Ayukta, by order dated 29.12.2005, directed the respondent to pay the entire balance amount legally due to the complainant, within one month. The Accountant General informed that as per sub-rule (4)(ii) of Rule 15 of GPF (Kerala Rules), if the application for closure is received in their office, after a period of one year of retirement, interest shall be admissible only upto a period of one year. Hence, the difference in the amount claimed by the subscriber has been finally settled and no balance was due to her as per their office records. On the basis of the above, Lok Ayukta closed the complaint vide order dated 13.09.2006 holding that, though the complainant has contended that she had produced the closure application in the year 1996 itself, along with the application for Voluntary Retirement from Service, she has not produced any evidence to prove that she has already sent an application. Thereafter, the complainant filed an interim application on 23.11.2006, in the closed complaint, stating that voluntary retirement application was already submitted 10 years before and after 15.08.1995, no reply was given to her on that application and, therefore, she had sought for a direction to pass order on the Voluntary Retirement Service application. On the averments made in the interim application, Lok Ayukta has reviewed its earlier order dated 13.09.2006 closing the complaint, as per order dated 25.5.2007, which reads as under: "Complaint No.2122/2005 Complainant J.Remadevi S.S.Bhavan, Karoor, Pothencode P O, Pin : 695 584 Respondents 1. The Directorate Health Service, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. District Medical Officer Thiruvananthapuram. 3. Medical Officer Community Centre, Kanyakulangara Thiruvananthapuram. By Senior Government Pleader ORDER Government Pleader made available to me a communication No.AD6-43411/05/DHS dated 30.8.2006 to the effect that GPF Closure application was filed by the complainant on 27.5.2004 and it was received by the Medical Officer in charge, Community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara on 29.5.2004. Though the complainant has contended that she preferred GPF Closure application in the year 1995 itself along with her application for voluntary retirement, she has not produced any evidence to prove that she has filed such an application. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant has filed GPF closure application before 27.5.2004. In view of the fact that the respondent has paid the GPF amount along with interest from 30.6.2000 the actual date of retirement upto 30.6.2001, the complainant is not entitled to any further interest for the P.F. amount. Accordingly this complaint is closed." Thereafter, the complainant pressed for interest on the pensionary benefits with effect from the date of application for Voluntary Retirement from Service i.e. from 15.8.1995 onwards. On the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant, Lok Ayukta passed order dated 15.7.2009 observing that there is no justification for denying benefits for getting interest on the amount payable to the complainant on retirement benefits and the respondents are liable to pay interest to the complainant on retirement benefits payable to her. Aggrieved by the order, the Medical Officer, Community Centre, Kanyakulangara, filed a Review Petition before the Honourable Lok Ayukta, which is numbered as I.A.No.642/2009. The complainant filed an objection against the action taken report with a counter claim to sanction pensionary benefits with effect from 15.8.1995. The complainant also filed an objection to the Review Petition on 26.11.2009 along with a petition for correcting the order dated 15.7.2009 by incorporating the percentage of interest which the respondent/complainant is entitled to. Both the I.A. Nos.555/2009 and 642 of 2009 were heard together and the Lok Ayukta dismissed I.A. No.642/09 filed by the Medical Officer, Community Centre, Kanyakulangara, and allowed I.A. No.555/09, filed by the complainant, declaring that the complainant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% per annum, as per order dated 22.03.2010.

Finding of the Court:

The Lok Ayukta, by assuming the power of review, not specifically conferred with the powers to review, under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, has jurisdictionally erred in reviewing its earlier decision on I.A. No.622/06 in Complaint No.2122/05 dated 25.05.2007 (Exhibit P21), and thus, has acted beyond the purview of the Act, 1999.

Issues: 1. Whether the Lok Ayukta has the power to review its earlier decision? 2. Whether the respondent/complainant is entitled to get interest from 24.12.2008?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of review is a creature of the statute and no court or quasi- judicial body or administrative authority can review its judgment or order or decision unless it is legally empowered to do so. 2. In the absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible.

Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed. Exhibit-P23 dated 15.07.2009 in Complaint No.2122/2005 and Exhibit P27 dated 22.03.2010 in I.A. Nos.555 and 642 of 2009 in Complaint No.2122/2005, insofar as it directs the payment of interest at the rate of @ 9% per annum, are quashed. It is declared that the respondent/complainant is not entitled to get interest from 24.12.2008.