The Court highlighted the necessity of procedural compliance in determining retirement benefit liabilities governed by specified rules.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner was working with the 1st respondent, Travancore Devaswom Board, and retired from service on 31.01.2018 as Deputy Devaswom Commissioner. Pursuant to Ext.P1 proceedings of the Devaswom Board, the petitioner’s retirement benefits were quantified. Out of the various benefits, an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- was fixed as the DCRG eligibility of the petitioner. However, the petitioner has approached this Court pointing out that the respondent Devaswom Board issued Ext.P2 communication fixing a liability of Rs.4,17,939/- against him. Aggrieved by Ext.P2, the petitioner submitted Exts.P3 and P4 objections. The petitioner states that, in spite of submitting Exts.P3 and P4, no decision has been taken in the matter. In this regard, the petitioner points out that on 16.03.2019, Ext.P5 communication was issued in reply to Exts.P3 and P4 stating that the necessary details were required to be obtained from various officers. The petitioner further points out that Ext.P6 was issued by the Devaswom Board informing him that there had been a wrong fixation of his salary for various periods and informing him about the incorrect fixation. The petitioner also points out Exts. P7, P8 and P9 communications issued by various Co-operative Banks to the Devaswom Board informing that the petitioner had availed various credit facilities and seeking that the amounts due under the said credit facilities be disbursed from the petitioner’s pensionary benefits. The contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4611 of 2021, the respondent Devaswom Board issued Ext.P10 order dated 12.04.2021, disbursing only an amount of Rs.2,27,626/- from the DCRG component and adjusting Rs.11,72,374/- towards the liabilities pursuant to Exts.P2 and P6 to P9.

2. I have heard Sri. D. Ajithkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri. G. Biju, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board.

3. As regards the liability payable pursuant to Ext.P2, it is true, as rightly contended by the petitioner, that the objections filed at Exts.P3 and P4 have not been finalised till date. This is also evident from Ext.P5 communication issued by the Devaswom Board dated 16.03.2019. In such circumstances, it is for the Devaswom Board to finalise the proceedings after furnishing the details of the audit objection, granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and also taking into account the relevant provisions of Rule 3, Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, pursuant to which the liability is required to be fastened within a period of three years. There will be a direction accordingly.

4. However, as regards the liability pursuant to Exts.P7, P8 and P9, this Court notices that the petitioner has a case to the effect that he had not given any willingness or permission to the Devaswom Board to deduct the amounts claimed by the Co-operative Banks from the DCRG eligibility of the petitioner. However, the respondent Devaswom Board seeks to rely on Ext.R1(d) consent letter allegedly executed by the petitioner. I have perused the said consent letter. The document is only a blank format of a letter without containing any details. True, there is a signature of the petitioner in the said consent letter. However, insofar as no details are provided regarding the loan account to which the consent was issued, the principal amount due, the balance payable, etc., in my opinion, the respondent Devaswom Board may not be justified in relying on Ext.R1(d).

5. On the face of the above, this Court also notices that the