State Of Kerala And Ors vs C. Somasundaram

Alexander Thomas, J

The prayers in the aforecaptioned Original Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows :

(1) "To set aside the Exhibit P4 order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1940/2017

(2) To dismiss the Exhibit P1 original application No.1940/2017 filed by the respondent before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal

(3) To declare that respondent is not eligible for any of the reliefs claimed in the Ext.P1 original application."

Heard Sri.T.Rajasekharan Nair, learned senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed by this Court in this petition, notice to R1 & R2 will stand dispensed with.

The State of Kerala and the Director of Urban Affairs, Government of Kerala has filed the instant original petition on being aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P4 final order dated 30.7.2019 rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench in OA No.1940/2017 filed by the contesting respondent No.1 herein. By the said impugned final order, the Tribunal had directed that the respondents therein (petitioners herein) to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the DCRG amount paid to the applicant after his retirement for the period from 1.8.2012 upto the date on which the said amount was actually paid (viz.30.12.2013). Further, the Tribunal as per the impugned Ext.P4 order has also ordered and found that the original applicant is entitled to get interest at the prescribed rate as per the provident fund rules, on the provident fund amount, on account of the delay in settling and disbursing the provident fund amounts, after his retirement. It is these directions issued by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal as per Ext.P4 is under challenge in this petition.

From the pleadings and materials on record, it is seen that the original applicant has retired from service as Health Inspector in the Municipality concerned on 31.5.2012. Citing the pendency of certain disciplinary proceedings, the death cum retirement gratuity (DCRG) was not paid to the applicant and it appears that the original applicant was exonerated in the said disciplinary proceedings and thereafter, the department authorities have released the DCRG amount of Rs. 6,30,000/-to R1 herein on 30.12.2013. Further, it appears that the final settlement of the Provident Fund account was ordered by the competent authority only on 9.11.2012 and the same was actually disbursed to the original applicant only on 6.12.2012. It is in the light of these aspects that the Tribunal has ordered that the original applicant is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% on the DCRG amount for the period from 1.8.2012 (two months after the retirement) upto 30.12.2013 (date on which the DCRG amount was actually released to him. So also, the Tribunal has ordered that on account of the delay in settling and disbursing the provident fund amounts, the applicant is entitled to get interest at the prescribed rate as per the PF rules, for the month of November, 2012 as well.

The matters regarding the payment of the PF dues could be considered first. There is no dispute that the R1 herein / applicant has in fact retired from service on 31.5.2012. Further, according to the applicant, an amount of Rs.9.30,000/- was due in the provident fund account. The final settlement of the PF account was ordered only on 9.11.2012 and that it was actually released to him only on 6.12.2012. There is no dispute that it is common ground that interest in respect of the provident fund amounts was computed only upto 31.10.2012 and no interest amount was paid for the month of November, 2012.

As per the Kerala Municipal Employees' Central Provident Fund Rules, when a provident fund account is finally settled before the 15th day of a month, interest will be calculated upto the preceding month and if it is computed in the 2nd half of the month, interest for the said months should also be computed. There is no dispute on the fact that the provident fund account was settled only on 9.11.2012 and it was actually disbursed to the applicant subsequently on 6.12.2012. Hence, the Tribunal has found that even going by that, the applicant is entitled for interest at the prescribed rate as per the PF Rules for the month of November, 2012 as well inasmuch as he was paid interest only upto 31.10.2012.

In view of the abovesaid provisions and the Rules, the abovesaid reasonings made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. Therefore, we are of the view that no interference is called for, as regards the said direction issued by the Tribunal for grant of interest as per the PF Rules to the applicant, even in respect of the month of November, 2012, inasmuch as the provident fund account is settled only on 9.11.2012 and disbursed to him only on 6.12.2012.

The next issue is as regards the interest directed to be paid for the delayed payment of DCRG. The authorities have not cited any valid reason for justifying the prolongation of the disciplinary proceedings that was stated to be pending against the applicant. As mentioned hereinabove, the incumbent was retired from service on 31.5.2012. There is also no dispute that he was subsequently exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings. The DCRG amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- was sanctioned and released to him only on 30.12.2013, which is more than 19 months after his retirement.

It is well settled that DCRG would also be a property of the pensioner and the enjoyment of the same can be denied only on the basis of a procedure which is just, fair and reasonable, since the pensioner can certainly raise a proprietary right as envisaged in Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The long delay of about more than 19 months in ultimately sanctioning and releasing the DCRG amount due to the pensioner was found to be unreasonable and improper by the Tribunal. It is on this basis that the Tribunal has ordered that the authorities concerned to ensure that the petitioner is paid interest on the DCRG amount at the rate of 9% per annum for the period from 1.8.2012 (two months after retirement) upto 30.12.2013 (date on which the DCRG amount was actually released).

After hearing both sides, we are of the considered view that the said orders and directions made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse and unreasonable. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the authorities could not sanction the DCRG on account of the pending disciplinary proceedings. It was the obligation of the competent authority concerned to ensure the expeditious conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Moreover, in this case, the incumbent has also been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings. Unless we find that the abovesaid direction issued by the Tribunal is perverse in a matter like this, interference in this case will not be justified. The learned Government Pleader has also made an alternate plea that the interest granted at the rate of 9% is on the higher side.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case and also taking into account the fact that the DCRG amount was paid to the incumbent, only after the expiry of 19 months after his retirement and also taking into account of the fact that he was also being exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter, merely on the basis of the abovesaid plea made by the learned Government Pleader. The abovesaid interest ordered by the Tribunal at 9% cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that there is no justification for interdiction in this case.

Accordingly, the original petition will stand dismissed.