IMPORTANT POINT
A teacher awarded a fellowship for Ph.D must refund salary if they fail to complete the course, as serving without completion does not absolve liability under the bond.

ORDER :

Anil K. Narendran, J

This intra-court reference arises out of the order of reference dated 07.07.2022 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.139 of 2022 filed by the original appellant-writ petitioner, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, against the judgment dated 14.12.2021 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.857 of 2019. During the pendency of the writ appeal, the original appellant died and her legal representatives are impleaded as supplemental appellants 2 to 4 by the order dated 27.11.2024.

2. The writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.857 of 2019, was one filed by the original appellant, who retired from service on 31.03.2011 while working as an Associate Professor in the Department of Physics, the Christian College, Kattakada, a college affiliated with the University of Kerala. The writ petition was filed, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 communication dated 12.02.2018 of the 2^nd respondent Director of Collegiate Education; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse the Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) due to her together with interest; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to issue a non-liability certificate (NLC) forthwith, so as to enable the 4^th respondent District Treasury Officer to disburse the DCRG amount due to her.

3. In the writ petition, the 2^nd respondent Director of Collegiate Education filed a counter affidavit dated 22.02.2019 opposing the reliefs sought for. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 26.06.2019. By the judgment dated 14.12.2021 in W.P.(C)No.857 of 2019 and the connected matter, i.e., W.P.(C)No.12996 of 2019, the learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P6 communication dated 12.02.2018 of the 2^nd respondent Director of Collegiate Education, on the ground that the demand made therein for refund of salary to the tune of Rs.5,75,258/- together with interest at the rate of 12.5% is barred by limitation, in view of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the consequential reliefs sought for, i.e., a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse the DCRG amount due to the petitioner, together with interest; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to issue a non-liability certificate in respect of the petitioner to disburse the DCRG due to her were declined. Feeling aggrieved, the original appellant filed the writ appeal.

4. On 27.01.2021, when the writ appeal came up for admission, notice before admission was ordered to respondents 5 and 6 by speed post. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 4.

5. On 07.07.2022, when the writ appeal came up for consideration before a Division Bench, the learned counsel for the original appellant submitted that insofar as the learned Single Judge has chosen to set aside Ext.P6 communication, the respondents ought to have been directed to disburse the DCRG payable to the appellant with interest. The learned counsel contended that Ext.P6 communication is unsustainable in law since the appellant has no liability to reimburse the pay and allowances received during the period of deputation, in terms of the bond that has been executed. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Ajitha C.K. [2021 (2) KHC 1] in support of the said contention. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that since the appellant failed to successfully complete the Ph.D programme, she is liable to reimburse not only the pay and allowances received during the period of deputation but also the penalty stipulated in the bond. As regards the contention that the liability of the appellant in terms of the bond cannot now be recovered from the DCRG, the learned Government Pleader submitted that as clarified by this Court in the j