HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.ASHA, J
J.REGHU – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF CULTURE – Respondent
WP(C)/28174/2015
Employment - Pension - Kerala Co-operative Societies Act - Sections 37; Kerala Service Rules - Part III
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Assistant Editor, sought to challenge the withholding of pension benefits due to claims on loans for which he was a surety, stating the withholding was unjustified and unauthorized.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that respondents had no authority to withhold the petitioner's pension or benefits, as the relevant laws only allowed deductions from salary or DCRG, and no misconduct was found against the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the respondents had the authority to withhold the petitioner's pension based on the bond executed as a surety for loans.
Ratio Decidendi: The withholding of pension benefitted the petitioner was not justified under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act or the Kerala Service Rules, as pensions are considered property and cannot be withheld without due legal process.
Final Decision: The court ordered the release of withheld pension benefits and compensation for delay.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner retired from service while working as Assistant Editor Grade I under the 2nd respondent on 30.4.2015. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P3, by which a sum of Rs.12,77,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakh seventy seven thousand only) was fixed as liability of the petitioner, in the light of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent Society.
2. In Ext.P3 letter it is stated that the 3rd respondent Society had informed the 1st respondent that petitioner had stood as a surety for two loans in which a sum of Rs.12,70,000/- was due to be paid.
3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit stating that petitioner stood as a surety to 2 loans availed by employees under respondents 1 and 2. Petitioner has as per Ext.R2(a) bond executed on 02.04.2009 stood as surety for another employee who availed housing loan of Rs.3 lakhs and agreed for recovery of the amount if any defaulted from the borrower as well as sureties jointly and authorised respondents 1 and 2 to realise the dues in the loan account from the salary or from the pensionary benefits of the borrower as well as the sureties. As per the bond the petitioner who stood as surety if retired from the Society, should not be paid gratuity and other pensionary benefits until the entire amount due to the society is paid. As per Ext.R1(b) letter dated 01.11.2014, the 3rd respondent society informed respondents 1 and 2 that petitioner has availed a loan of Rs.3 lakhs and stood as surety for two loans of Rs.3 lakhs each on 02.04.2009 and a sum of Rs.12,77,000/-was outstanding in those accounts along with interest. It was therefore requested to withhold all claims including DCRG/NLC of petitioner till further communication was received. In the light of Exts.R2(a) bond and R2(b) letter, the petitioner was asked to remit the amount and thereafter as payment was not made, Ext.P3 NLC was issued, in the light of Ruling No.1 below Rule 3, part III KSR.
4. When the writ petition came up for consideration on
07.03.2017, it was submitted that petitioner was not paid even the monthly pension. Thereupon an interim order was passed on 7.3.2017 directing the respondents to see that petitioner is paid full pension from 1.4.2017 onwards and to pay the arrears of pension for the period from 1.5.2015 within a period of three weeks and commuted value of pension within another two months. The petitioner submitted that under the guise of Ext.P3 order the entire pensionary benefits were withheld and he was not even given provisional pension even though he retired from service as early as on 30.4.2015.
5. According to the 2nd respondent they retained the entire pensionary benefits because of Ext.R2(b) letter dated 1.11.2014 of the 3rd respondent directing the 2nd respondent to withhold all monetory claims of the petitioner including pension and DCRG, not to issue nonliability certificate till further communication was received from the society ( Section 37 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act .
Article (3)(b) of Kerala Financial Code Volume-1)
6. I heard the learned Counsel on both sides.
7. The 1st respondent pleads helplessness in the light of Ext.R2(b) letter. Respondents 1 and 2 do not dispute the fact that fixation and grant of pension and pensionary benefits to the employees under them are governed by the provisions under KSR. There is no provision in part III of KSR which provides for retaining even the monthly pension or the commuted value of pension of a retired employee of respondents 1 and 2, even if there is any liability outstanding; that too against a society. Ruling No.1 below Rule 3 of Part III KSR reads as follows:
“Amounts due from a Government employee or pensioner to
Therefore what is permitted is recovery from DCRG. Respondents 1 and 2 have withheld
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.