Point of Law: Payment of pension is no act of grace or bounty on part of anyone. That is a right earned by Government servant, in recognition of his past services.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the directions issued by the Kerala Lok Ayukta dated 19.03.2014 in complaint No. 885 of 2013, Special Secretary to the Government, General Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed the instant writ petition for the following reliefs:

“(i) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P1 order of the Hon’ble Lok Ayukta and quash the same.

(ii) Issue such orders to set aside Exhibit P1 order of the Hon’ble Lok Ayukta.

(iii) To declare that the petitioner had not caused any delay in disbursal of DCRG of the first respondent, over and above, time prescribed under the Service Rules entitling the petitioner to pay compensation by way of damages or interest.”

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under:

2.1. Petitioner is highly aggrieved by Ext. P1 order of the Lok Ayukta, directing the Government to pay the damages by way of interest on the gratuity amount @ 10% per annum for the period from 13.01.2013 to 13.06.2013, and subsequently giving liberty to fix the responsibility for the delay, and to recover the amount from the officers concerned, who are responsible for the delay in issuing NLC.

2.2. Petitioner has submitted that the Government is not a party in the complaint. Therefore, alleged delay at the hands of the Head Master and AEO is to be disregarded in view of disbursing DCRG within one year, which satisfactory period is fixed for issuing NLC to a retired employee of the Government.

2.3. Petitioner has further submitted that the Lok Ayukta has exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding compensation or fixing the same, other than forwarding recommendation to the competent authority after making investigation, that too to a party who is not arrayed in the complaint. The said act is illegal, unjustifiable and unlawful.

2.4. Petitioner has also submitted that it will also cause a precedent to demand interest on DCRG before fixing the liability after considering the audit objection to all the employees who retire from the Government service. Government has got every right to take reasonable time to determine the liability of retired employees and if interest is paid in one case alleging delay, it will have to be paid in almost all the cases causing huge loss to the Government.

3. Finding that there was delay in disbursement of DCRG benefits, Lok Ayukta, by order in complaint No. 885 of 2013 dated 19.03.2014, has directed payment of interest on the gratuity amount at the rate of 10% per annum for the period from 13.01.2013 to 13.06.2013.

4. Reiterating the averments, Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that though Government was not a party in the complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein, and in the absence of specific allegation against the Government, Lok Ayukta has directed the Government to pay the damages by way of interest on the gratuity amount.

5. He further submitted that gratuity was paid within one year from the date of retirement of the 1st respondent, and that there is no undue delay. He also submitted that no compensation by payment of interest can be ordered by the Lok Ayukta.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

7. Reading of the order made in complaint No. 885 of 2013 dated 19.03.2014 shows that the respondent retired on 30.06.2012. Gratuity amount of Rs. 5,95,076/- was disbursed to him pursuant to Ext. P12 NLC issued by the Assistant Educational Officer, Palode, to the Sub Treasury Officer, Attingal, on 28.06.2013. Delay of one year in disbursement of gratuity has occurred for the reason that Ext. P12 NLC was forwarded by the AEO to the Sub Treasury Officer, Attingal, only on 13.06.2013, i.e. nearly one year from the date of retirement.

8. Reading of the impugned order further shows that though the complainant retired on 30.06.2012, finalization of the audit report and the audit objection by the DPI was done only on 06.06.2013. There is no reason as to why the audit objec