AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Siri Jagan, J.—The Petitioner retired from the service of the Government of Kerala as 2nd Grade Surveyor on 28.02.2000. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 4th Respondent to revise the pay scale of the Petitioner from 90-190 to Rs. 100-210 in the post of II Grade Surveyor from 3.11.1969 and revise the pay scale on his promotion as 1st Grade Surveyor and Time bound higher grades granted to him thereafter from time to time, revise the pay scales upon pay revisions took place in the years 1973, 1978, 1983, 1988, 1992 and 1997, accepting his re-option and grant arrears of pay thereto.
(b) Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents 2 to 4 to revise the pension on the basis of the revision of pay scales at the time of retirement and grant arrears of pension.
(c) Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to revise the DCRG and commuted value of pension on the basis of the revision of pay scales.
(d) Writ in nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to grant interest for the delayed financial benefits at the rate of 9% in respect of pay arrears and pension arrears till the actual date of payment from the date it becomes payable and further direct to recover the amount interest from the person responsible for the delay.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3rd Respondent in this case which reads as follows:
The Petitioner is a retired First Grade Surveyor who retired from the office of Special Tahsildar, (LA) Kinfra, Palakkad. Earlier he had filed WP(C) 24501/06 and by judgment dated 18.9.2006 the Hon''ble High Court directed to grant the benefits arising out of the re-option exercised by him. Following the judgment this office vide proceedings No. A7/17828/06 dated 27.1.2007 directed the Special Tahsildar LA, Kinfra, Palakkad to disburse the benefits to the Petitioner. This office has given repeated direction to comply with the judgment dated 18.09.2006 in WP(C) 24501/06 within the time limit. But the report received from the Special Tahsildar (LA), Kinfra reveals that the pay fixation arrears alone remains to be disbursed to the Petitioner for the reason that he has not submitted proper declaration to the effect that he is willing to refund the amount which may be found later to be in excess.
Special Tahsildar LA, Kinfra, Palakkad vide Lr. No. C/963/06 dated 18.8.2006 report in compliance with the judgment dated 18.9.2006 in WP(C) 24501/06 that all the benefits except the pay fixation arrears has been given to the Petitioner. A true copy of this report is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R3(a). This report from the special Tahsildar shows that the Petitioner is not ready to submit proper declaration to the effect that he is willing to refund the amount paid if found to be excess in future. So the Petitioner himself is responsible for the delay in getting the arrears. A true copy of proceedings No. A7/17828/06 dated 27.1.2007 mentioned in Exhibit R3(a) is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R3 (b). Had the Petitioner submitted proper declaration he would have been given the re-fixation arrears due.
It is submitted that all the similar persons except the Petitioner had submitted the declaration before the authority concerned for receiving the eligible benefits to them. So the non co-operation from the part of the Petitioner in giving the proper declaration is the reason for delay.
In this circumstances it is clear that there is no bonafides on the part of the Petitioner. In the above circumstances it is requested that this writ petition may be dismissed.
The counsel for the Petitioner submits that, the writ petition can be disposed of in terms of the averments in the counter affidavit.
Accordingly I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Respondents that if the Petitioner complies with the requirements as stated in the counter affidavit, the arrears shall be disbursed to the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.