Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 770
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANU, JJ.
Nnamma Joseph W/o T.A. Thankappan – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
OP (KAT) No. 78 of 2024
Decided On : 03-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Kaleeswaram Raj, Thulasi K. Raj, Aparna Narayan Menon, Chinnu Maria Antony.
For the Respondent: Vinitha B.
IMPORTANT POINT
Recovery of pension benefits is legally unsustainable if intimation of liabilities is not provided within three years of retirement, as per Note-3 of Rule 3, Part-III KSR.
Headnote:
RECOVERY - PENSIONER LIABILITY - The court held that recovery of pension benefits cannot occur after three years from the date of retirement unless both quantification and intimation of liabilities are completed within that period, as mandated by Note-3 of Rule 3, Part-III KSR. The court found that while quantification occurred within the three-year limit, the intimation was delayed, rendering the recovery order legally unsustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a government order that withheld her entire DCRG and permanently reduced her monthly pension by Rs. 15,000, following disciplinary action taken three years post-retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the intimation of liability was provided after the three-year period, which is contrary to the requirements of Note-3 of Rule 3, Part-III KSR, leading to the conclusion that the recovery order was legally erroneous.
Issues: Whether the recovery of pension benefits can be enforced after three years from the date of retirement, given the requirements of quantification and intimation under the applicable rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that both quantification and intimation must occur within three years of retirement for any recovery to be valid. The show-cause notice alone does not constitute a final liability.
Final Decision: The court set aside the recovery order and directed the release of the withheld DCRG and pension balance to the petitioner within two months.
JUDGMENT :
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
1. The petitioner approached the Tribunal challenging Annexure-A3(b) order of the Government finalizing disciplinary action by ordering withholding entire DCRG and also an order to reduce Rs.15,000/-from her monthly pension permanently under Rule 3 Part-III KSR.
2. The following facts are relevant to this matter:
| Date of retirement | 28.2.2018 |
| Date of order imposing penalty | 23.2.2021 |
| Date of Intimation | 12.3.2021 |
3. There is no dispute regarding the above facts. The question is whether recovery can be effected after three years of becoming a pensioner. It is appropriate to refer to Note-3 of Rule 3 of Part-III of KSR. Note-3 reads thus:
“Rule 3, Note 3 - Any liabilities which could have been otherwise ascertained and finalised without resort to any judicial proceedings/departmental proceedings would have to be quantified and finalised with due notice to pensioner within an outer time limit of three years from the date of retirement of the pensioner in view of mandate contained in Note 3 of Rule 3, Part III, KSRs.”
4. There are two parts in Note-3. One is related to quantification, and the second part is related to intimation. As per the Rule, quantification as well as intimation should happen within a period of three years concerning the pensioner.
5. In this case, quantification was made on 23.2.2021, which is within the period of three years. However, intimation was made only on 12.3.2021, as evidenced by Annexure-A3(c).
6. The Tribunal was of the view that since quantification was already made in the show-cause notice, it is sufficient to hold that quantification and intimation had occurred within three years. This view, according to us, is legally erroneous. The show-cause notice itself cannot fix a liability on the pensioner. Even if followed by actions based on that show-cause notice, it alone cannot fix the liability. The liability referred to in Note-3 of Rule 3 is the final liability after the conclusion of the proceedings. It is not related to the tentative liability mentioned in the show-cause notice.
7. In view of the fact that intimation was given to the petitioner only after three years of becoming pensioner, the recovery is legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order and Annexure-A3(b) ordering recovery are set aside. It is submitted at the Bar that the admitted portion has already been released. The balance portion of the withheld DCRG as well as the balance portion of the pension shall be released to the petitioner without any delay, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
8. The O.P. (KAT) is disposed of as above.
