SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 857

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, A.C.J., S. MANU, J.
STATE OF KERALA – Petitioner
Versus
A.N. SOJAN S/O KESAVAN NARAYANAN – Respondent
OP (KAT) No. 508 of 2023
Decided On : 10-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: VINEETHA.
For the Respondent: T.C. GOVINDASWAMY.

IMPORTANT POINT
Pension and gratuity are recognized as valuable rights, and any unjustified delay in their disbursement entitles the employee to claim interest, irrespective of specific provisions in service rules.

Headnote:

WITHHOLDING OF DCRG - PENSION AND GRATUITY - Rule 3A of Part III KSR, Section 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Articles 14, 19, 21, 300 of the Constitution - The court interpreted Rule 3A of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, which allows withholding of DCRG only when judicial or departmental proceedings are pending. The court found that since the vigilance case was still under investigation and no judicial proceedings were initiated, withholding the DCRG was improper. The court also emphasized that pension and gratuity are valuable rights, and any delay in their disbursement warrants interest, supported by precedents and constitutional provisions.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a retired Senior Superintendent, had his DCRG and provisional pension withheld due to a vigilance case against him. After the case was quashed, he sought the release of his benefits and interest on the delayed payment, which was initially denied by the Transport Commissioner.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the withholding of DCRG was illegal as no judicial proceedings were pending against the respondent. It also ruled that the respondent was entitled to interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.

Issues: Whether the withholding of DCRG was justified under Rule 3A of Part III KSR and whether the respondent was entitled to claim interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that Rule 3A requires actual judicial or departmental proceedings to be ongoing for withholding benefits. Since the vigilance case was only at the investigation stage, the withholding was unjustified. Furthermore, the court established that employees have a right to claim interest on delayed payments of gratuity, even in the absence of specific statutory provisions.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the original petition filed by the State, affirming the Tribunal's order to release the withheld DCRG and pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANU, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.1.2023 in O.A. (EKM) No. 946/2019 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam the State has filed this original petition.

2. The applicant in the O.A. is the respondent herein. He superannuated from service in the cadre of Senior Superintendent on 31.5.2015 from the office of the 3rd respondent. He was sanctioned the provisional pension and DCRG due to him was withheld invoking Rule 3A of Part III of Kerala Service Rules. Reason for withholding the DCRG and sanction of provisional pension was registration of a case by Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kannur unit against four Government employees including the respondent and three others. As revealed from Annexure-A2 the case was registered under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of IPC.

3. The Government employees including the petitioner involved in the case approached this Court in Crl.M.C.No. 1607/2016 praying for quashing the FIR lodged against them. Order passed by this Court in the Crl.M.C. is produced with the original application as Annexure-A3. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the Crl.M.C. on the basis of submissions made by the learned State Attorney. Submissions made by the learned State Attorney as recorded in the order of the learned Single Judge are extracted hereunder:

    “It has been submitted by the learned State Attorney that no forgery was committed by the petitioners. It has been further submitted by the learned State Attorney that no amount was recovered from accused Nos.1 to 4. No forged envelope was also recovered from Accused Nos.1 to 4. However, the envelopes with the seal of the Postal Department were found in the almirah of the Joint Regional Transport office. The said covers were allegedly handed over to the office along with the applications by the agents of Driving Schools. The learned State Attorney has submitted no criminal mis-conduct was detected on the side of the petitioners.”

4. Emerging victorious in the attempt to quash the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act from the stage of inception, the respondent submitted Annexure-A4 representation to the Transport Commissioner for release of some payments withheld by the department. By order dated 06.06.2018 produced as Annexure-A5 pensionary benefits were sanctioned to the respondent. No liability certificate for enabling release of gratuity was also issued. By Annexure-A7 gratuity payment order, gratuity was also sanctioned.

5. On 16.8.2018, the respondent submitted Annexure-A8 representation to the Transport Commissioner requesting for payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the gratuity amount. By Annexure-A9 the request was rejected. In Annexure-A9 the Transport Commissioner stated inter alia that the pensionary benefits were not disbursed immediately after retirement on account of pendency of vigilance case.

6. Challenging the rejection of the request for interest the respondent approached the Tribunal in O.A. (EKM)No. 946/2019. On completion of pleadings, learned Tribunal heard the matter and allowed the O.A. by the impugned order. The learned Tribunal found that Rule 3A of Part III KSR justifies withholding of DCRG only where any departmental or judicial proceeding is instituted under Rule 3 or where a departmental proceeding is continuing under Clause A of the proviso thereto. Taking note of the Explanation (b) under Rule 3 of Part III KSR the learned Tribunal held that the case of the respondent though a vigilance case was registered it was only at the stage of investigation and therefore it cannot be said that a judicial proceeding was pending against him. Finding that retention of the DCRG by the Government was not in accordance with law, the learned Tribunal granted interest at the rate of 7% per annum for the period from 01.11.2015 to 06.06.2018.

7. The learned Government Pleader Smt.B.Vinitha strenuously contended befo

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top