AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner, a Co-operative Bank, has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 order of the competent authority under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972, holding that the 2nd respondent is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,11,211.49/- as subsistence allowance for the period from 01.10.2024 till 01.04.2025. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent was reinstated on 29.03.2025 and was entitled to full salary from that date onwards. It is submitted that the finding of the 1st respondent that the 2nd respondent is entitled to subsistence allowance for the period up to 01.04.2025 is therefore unsustainable in law. It is submitted that despite the mistake being brought to the notice of the 1st respondent, he is refusing to correct the order.
The learned Government Pleader submits that even if the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, the subsistence allowance that is to be paid additionally is for 2 days, i.e. on 30.03.2025 and 31.03.2025, and the mistake, if at all, in the order of the 1st respondent need not be interfered with in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In other words, it is submitted that the Court should not be concerned with trifles as the injury complained of is inconsequential.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that the learned Government Pleader is right in contending that the injury complained of is too trivial that this Court must not entertain any challenge to the impugned order. This is a case where the principle contained in the maxim de minimis non curat lex must apply. The principle has been applied in myriad situations. I have had the occasion to consider the Rule in the context of Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (See P. K Rajesh v. Kariyil Gopi & anr, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 5600). In Broom’s Legal Maxims (New 11th Edition) at page 98 the application of the Rule is explained thus:-
“A familiar instance of the application of this maxim occurred likewise in the rule observed by the Courts at Westminster, not to grant new trials at the instance of either party, on the ground of the verdict being against the evidence, where damages were less than £20. As remarked by Lord Kenyon, where the damages are small, and the question too inconsiderable to be retried, the Court have frequently refused to send the case back to another jury.”
It is clear from the facts of the case that even if this Court were to hold that the contention of the petitioner is correct, the only difference in the amount payable to the 2nd respondent would be the subsistence allowance payable for 30.03.2025 and 31.03.2025.
Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with Ext.P3 order.
The writ petition fails, and it is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.