Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6305
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, Murali Purushothaman, J
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – Appellant
Versus
INDIRA BAI K.P. – Respondent
WP(C) 27700/2012
SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD
The court reinforced that retirement benefits are legal entitlements, and delays in disbursement attract mandated interest under the relevant laws.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Retirement Benefits - Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 (Sections 8(1), Second Schedule Clause (d)), Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Section 7(3A)) - The court held that retirement benefits like DCRG are legal rights, and failure to timely disburse requires payment of interest, as per statutory requirements and interpretations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, government officials, challenged the Lok Ayukta's order to pay interest on delayed retirement benefits to a retired officer who complained of the slow sanction process of her terminal benefits after retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in disbursing terminal benefits was unjustified, emphasizing the legal obligation to pay such benefits promptly, along with applicable interest, as established by previous judgments and statutory provisions.
Issues: Did the delay in sanctioning the retirement benefits constitute maladministration, warranting interest as mandated by law?
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that if terminal benefits are withheld without justifiable reasons, interest is applicable as per relevant acts, viewing delayed retirement benefits as a statutory right.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, affirming the Lok Ayukta's order for interest on delayed benefits.
JUDGMENT
S. Manikumar, CJ Instant writ petition is filed by the Secretary to the Government, General Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram; Director of Public Instructions; Deputy Director of Education; and District Educational Officer, seeking for the following reliefs:
(i) To issue a writ of Mandamus and to call for the records leading to Exhibit-P2 order of the Lok Ayukta passed in Complaint No.2002/2010 and be pleased to quash the same;
(ii) To declare the petitioners have not purposefully delayed the sanctioning of the DCRG and other terminal benefits due to the respondent;
(iii) To set aside Exhibit-P2 order of the Lok Ayukta dated
20.01.2012, since the petitioners have already released the admissible amount of DCRG and other terminal benefits due to the respondent herein:
2. Brief facts for disposal of the writ petition are that, petitioners herein are respondents 1 to 4 in Complaint No.2002/2010 filed by the respondent herein before the Lok Ayukta. The respondent herein, while working as the District Educational Officer, Palakkad, retired from service on 31.03.2009. She has filed the complaint before the Lok Ayukta, aggrieved by the delay in sanctioning and disbursing the terminal benefits due to her. She also alleged in the said complaint that in spite of submitting her pension proposal on 20.11.2008 to the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad, he has not taken any steps to sanction and disburse the terminal benefits due to the respondent, including DCRG, commuted value of pension, and family benefit scheme.
3. Petitioners have further stated that the Deputy Director of Education, petitioner No.3 herein, has filed a defense statement in the complaint before the Lok Ayukta, stating that the proposal for pension of the respondent/complainant was received on 27.11.2008; that it was forwarded to the Director of Public Instructions, petitioner No.2 herein, for onward transmission to the Accountant General, on 29.01.2009, under intimation to the District Educational Officer; that for rectifying certain defects, the DPI returned the pension book on 2.3.2009; that after rectification of the defects pointed out, proposal was resubmitted on 13.05.2009; and that on the direction from the office of the 2nd respondent over phone, one more pension book was forwarded on 25.07.2009 and the claim for pension was sanctioned on 11.11.2009.
4. Apart from the above, various reasons caused for the delay in disbursing the terminal benefits due to the respondent were also stated in the defense statement by the petitioners.
5. After considering the defense statement; arguments made, and taking note of the decision of this Court in Nadeera v. State of Kerala [ 2011 (3) KLT 790 ], vide Exhibit-P2 order dated 20.01.2012 in Complaint No. 2002 of 2010, Kerala Lok Ayukta directed to grant interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the admissible amount of DCRG after deducting liability of Rs.26,161/- and further directed the Government to recover the said interest from the officers found responsible for the delay. Hence, the writ petition was filed for the reliefs stated supra.
6. On the above pleadings and in support of the reliefs sought for, petitioners have raised the following grounds:
A. It is respectfully submitted that Lok Ayukta failed to take note of the reasons assigned for the delay in disbursing the DCRG amount due to the respondent herein. The defense statement filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent clearly stated the reasons for the delay in disbursing the admissible amount of DCRG due to the respondent. Further, it is submitted that there is also a writ petition, with regard to the approval of appointment given by the respondent herein as W.P.(C) No.12420 of 2010 and that the outcome of the same was not known to the petitioners, at the time of disposal of the above complaint. Hence, the DCRG amount was withheld awaiting the finalization of audit objections.
B. It is further contended that the Lok Ayukta ought to have shown some leniency to t
