Recovery from the DCRG based on fixation could have been possible only if the liability is fixed within three years from the date of retirement.
Google+ Facebook Twitter Email PrintFriendly Addthis

(2014) 374 KLW 604

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 

ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.

OP (KAT) No. 295 of 2014 (Z)

Dated this the 25th day of September, 2014

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TA 3131/2012 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 13-03-2014 

PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANT IN T.A.:

C.V SOMARAJAN NAIR JOINT BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (RETIRED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE BDO, PANDALAM) 

BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.ARUN BOSE 

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN T.A.

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001 

2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT,L.M.S COMPOUND,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001.

3. THE ASST.DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATHANAMTHITTA PIN 689 645 

4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 508 

5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN 689 501

6. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(KERALA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695 001 

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL

J U D G M E N T 

Antony Dominic, J. 

This OP is filed by the applicant in TA No.3131/12, who is aggrieved by the order dated 13th of March, 2014 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Petitioner, who was a Joint Block Development Officer under the respondents, retired from service on 31/8/2008. His prayer in the T.A. was mainly to direct the respondents to release the DCRG amount due to him. The Tribunal by the impugned order directed DCRG amount to be released to the petitioner after deducing an amount of 75,095/- with 9% interest from 1/12/2008 till the date of payment. It was further directed that the 2nd respondent shall finalise the liability taking into account the objection of the petitioner also.

3. In this O.P., the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the provisions contained in Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR, liability cannot be fixed beyond the period of three years and that recovery cannot be effected based on such fixation of liability from the DCRG due. Counsel also relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in 

Ratheesh S. Nair v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2014 (2) KLJ 858) 

to buttress the said contention. Therefore, according to him, direction of the Tribunal entitling the respondents to deduct 75,095/- with 9% interest thereon from 1/12/2008 from the DCRG due to him is illegal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

5. According to the learned Government Pleader, in pursuance of the orders passed by the Tribunal, by order dated 9/7/14, the liability of the petitioner has been fixed at 1,00,144/-. In this OP, we are only concerned with the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal entitling the respondents to withhold a part of the DCRG due to the petitioner towards the liability that is due from him.

6. The recovery from DCRG is permissible only if it is otherwise provided in the provisions of KSR. Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR and also the terms of Rule 116 fixes a time limit for such an action to three years from the date of retirement. In so far as this case is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on 31/8/2008. If that be so, recovery from the DCRG based on fixation could have been possible only if the liability is fixed within three years from the date of retirement. This position is also covered by the Division Bench judgment referred above. If that be so, the direction of the Tribunal entitling the respondents to withhold 75,095/- together with interest at 9% from 1/12/2008 cannot be sustained.

7. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal entitling the respondents to withhold an amount of 75,095/- with 9% interest from 1/12/2008 till the date of payment and order that the entire gratuity due to the petitioner shall be released to him. However, it is clarified that this judgment will not in any manner affect the right of the respondents to recover the amount, if any, due to them in accordance with the provisions of law. The above directions shall be complied with, at any rate, within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 

OP(KAT) is disposed of as above. 

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE 

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE 

Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge