Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 51239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 1708 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S:
DAVIS P.A AGED 59 YEARS S/O.LATE ANTONY, PALLIPADAN HOUSE, KORATTY P.O., CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 308.
BY ADV I.SHEELA DEVI RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHADRATHA, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR-680 020.
2 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P AND HR), KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BHADRATHA, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR-680 020.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.RAJA KANNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.3.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).8688/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 8.4.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 8688 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S:
SELVARAJ P.K AGED 59 YEARS S/O. THE LATE M.S.KUMARAN, SAKETHAM HOUSE, KOTTARAM JUNCTION, KADAKKARAPPALLY P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-
688529.
BY ADVS. S.M.PREM SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN (PALAKKAD)
SRI.H.NARAYANAN SRI.G INDUCHUDAN RESPONDENT/S:
THE KERALA FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHADRATHA, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR-680020.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.RAJA KANNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.3.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).23880/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 8.4.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 17564 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: SHANAVAS P.M. AGED 59 YEARS S/O. MUSTHAFA RAWTHER, WHITE COTTAGE, MADUKKUMMOODU, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM 686 106.
BY ADVS. S.M.PREM G INDUCHUDAN RESPONDENT/S:
THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHADRATHA, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR 680 020.
BY ADVS.
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.3.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).23880/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 8.4.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 20077 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S:
CHANDRADASAN R AGED 59 YEARS DEPPUTY MANAGER (RTD)
THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, (PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT MAKAYIRAM, PANTHALAMMUKKU, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM 691 536)
BY ADVS.
S.K.ADHITHYAN KEERTHI S. JYOTHI RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED (KSFE)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHADRATHA, P.B NO. 510, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR 680 020
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, BHADRATHE, P./B NO. 510, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR 680 020 3 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P AND HR)
THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, BHADRATHA, P.B NO. 510, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR 680 020 BY ADVS.
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN JOSE KURIAN PARAYIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.3.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).23880/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 8.4.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 23880 OF 2019 PETITIONER/S:
VEERAS N.K., AGED 58 YEARS S/O.N.N.KOCHAHAMMED,NANETHAN HOSE,ALLAPRA.P.O,P.ERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683556.
BY ADVS. S.M.PREM SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN (PALAKKAD)
SRI.H.NARAYANAN SRI.G INDUCHUDAN RESPONDENT/S:
THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHADRATHA,MUSEUM ROAD,THRISSUR-680020.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM VINITHA.V THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.3.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).1708 of 2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 8.4.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 26191 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S:
B.RAJENDRAN AGED 59 YEARS S/O BALAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN, THUNDIYIL PUTHENVEEDU, KEEZHCHERIMEL, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA-689121.
BY ADVS. S.M.PREM G INDUCHUDAN RESPONDENT/S:
KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED (KSFE)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHADRATHA, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR-680020.
BY ADVS.
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.3.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).23880/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 8.4.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
V.G.ARUN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P(C).Nos. 23880 of 2019 and 1708, 8688, 17564, 20077 & 26191 of 2021 -----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2022
['I SHEELA DEVI', 'SRI M GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR', '', 'SRI K JOHN MATHAI', 'SRI JOSON MANAVALAN', 'SRI KURYAN THOMAS', 'SRI PAULOSE C ABRAHAM', 'SRI RAJA KANNAN', 'SRI K JOHN MATHAISRI RAJA KANNANSRI JOSON MANAVALANSRI KURYAN THOMASSRI PAULOSE C ABRAHAM']
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are retired employees of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd (‘the Company’, for short). They are aggrieved by the non-disbursal of benefits like gratuity, earned leave surrender, arrears of dearness allowance, salary revision arrears, festival incentives, flood relief amount etc. The reason for non-disbursal put forth by the Company is the alleged grant of sticky loans/chits in violation of the Company's circulars and norms.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended in unison that the allegations are baseless and notice of quantification of the alleged liability was not issued to the petitioners while they were in service. It is contended that, terminal benefits being reward for service rendered, ought to have been disbursed immediately after retirement. The Company having failed to do so, is bound to pay interest on the amount due.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Company explained that the usual practice is to quantify the liability of each employee, prior to the settlement of his/her retirement benefits. For the purpose of quantification, liability/non liability reports are collected from the Head Office and Branches where the employee had worked. In the process, if any liability is reported, that will have to be deducted from the benefits due to the employee. In the case of the petitioners, sanctioning of loans and chitties without adequate security, from the Branches where they had worked, resulted in the Company being disabled from recovering the amounts due under those transactions. Even though the petitioners were called upon to settle the liability thus incurred, they superannuated without settling the liability. The fact that the petitioners are retired does not exempt or immunise them from the contumacious conduct and the Company has every right to adjust the liability incurred by petitioners against the terminal benefits due to them.
4. Indisputably, no disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioners while they were in service. No rule or regulation enabling the Company to initiate proceedings for recovery or for withholding terminal benefits after retirement is brought to my notice. Being so, it can unhesitatingly be held that, non-disbursal of terminal and other benefits, based on an unsubstantiated allegation of having caused loss to the Company, is not only illegal but is also antithesis to the mutual trust on which an employer-employee relationship is founded.
5. The precedents on the point are plenty. In Khem Chand v.
Union of India [AIR 1963 SC 687], the Apex Court held the right to arrears of pay and allowance to be property within the meaning of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. In Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar [AIR 1971 SC 179], the right to receive pension is held to be property under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1). Taking note of the repeal of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) by the Constitution (Forty-fourth) Amendment Act, the Apex court in State of W.B. v. Haresh C. Banerjee [(2006) 7 SCC 651] declared the right to retirement benefits to be a constitutional right, as contemplated in Article 300-A. The legal position needs no further reiteration in the light of the categorical finding in State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, [(2013) 12 SCC 210], contextually relevant portion of which is reproduced here under;
“The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognised as a right in “property”. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India reads as under:
“300-A.Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.—No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”
Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. I
