K.B. Raveendran vs The Chief Engineer (HRM) and K.S.E.B

S. Siri Jagan, J.—The petitioner was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. While in service, pursuant to disciplinary proceedings, he was imposed with a punishment of barring one increment without cumulative effect by order dated 01.08.2001. Consequentially increment due to the petitioner with effect from 01.08.2001 was not paid. Later, with effect from 01.08.2002, that increment was restored along with the next increment. The petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2003 drawing a basic salary of Rs. 10,075/ -. But the retirement benefits of the petitioner has been calculated on the basic pay of Rs. 9,700/ - only. This was on the assumption that, one increment of the petitioner has to be reduced from the same in view of the punishment. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(i) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the original of Ext-P5 and Ext-P3 to the extent it sanctions a lesser pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or directions directing the 1st respondent to sanction and pay monthly pension, DCRG, commuted value of pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner in par with Sri. T.N. Balan and pay arrears of pension

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent taking the contention that, the order imposing punishment of barring of the next one increment without cumulative effect was passed on 01.08.2001 which was the petitioner''s date of increment and therefore it becomes effective only with effect from 01.08.2002 which is the next increment date. Therefore the petitioner retired from service only with a basic pay of Rs. 9,700/ - since one increment was withheld and he retired from service before the next date of increment he is not entitled to draw any further increment. Therefore the petitioner should be deemed to have retired with the basic pay of only Rs. 9,700/ -.

Since there was a doubt as to whether petitioner''s increment was withheld with effect from 01.08.2001 or 01.08.2002, I directed the standing counsel for the K.S.E.B. to get instructions on that question. Today, the standing counsel produces a copy of a letter addressed from the Executive Engineer to the Chief Engineer (HRM) of the K.S.E.B. before me wherein it is stated that, petitioner''s next one increment with effect from 01.08.2001 was actually withheld in view of the punishment. But later on, when pension papers of the petitioner were forwarded to the Assistant Administrative Officer, Pay Fixation, of the K.S.E.B., he objected to the same on the ground that, since the increment date is 1st August and the increment had to be withheld with effect from the next date of increment by order dated 01.08.2001 petitioner''s increment could not have been withheld with effect from 01.08.2001 and could have been withheld only from 01.08.2002.

I am of opinion that, insofar as petitioner has suffered the punishment with effect from 01.08.2001 itself, the respondents cannot be heard to contend that actually his punishment took effect only on 01.08.2002. Even otherwise it is not totally illogical that by order dated 01.08.2001 the increment with effect from 01.08.2001 is withheld. Therefore I do not find any merit in the objection of the Assistant Administrative Officer, Pay Fixation also. Now that the petitioner had already undergone the punishment with effect from 01.08.2001 itself, I am of opinion that, the petitioner is entitled to have his increment restored with effect from 01.08.2002 and consequentially as on date of retirement he was drawing a salary of Rs. 10,075/ -. Petitioner is therefore entitled to computation of retirement benefits on the basic salary of Rs. 10,075/ - itself. Appropriate orders recalculating the retirement benefits of the petitioner on the basis of his basic pay as Rs. 10,075/ - shall be made, orders passed and arrears disbursed to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.