K. VALSALA, RET.HEADMISTRESS OF versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

K. VALSALA, RET.HEADMISTRESS OF v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 3002 of 2007(G) [2007] RD-KL 9569 (6 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 3002 of 2007(G)

1. K. VALSALA, RET.HEADMISTRESS OF
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION,

4. A.E.O., CIVIL STATION, PALAGHAT.

5. THE SUB-TREASURY OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SMT.LEELA NARAYANAN

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :06/06/2007

O R D E R

A.K. BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C). NO. 3002 OF 2007

Dated this the 6th day of June, 2007

J U D G M E N T

Though the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed to a large extent, in as much as she has been paid a sum of Rs.1,25,554/- towards her DCRG, she has got a contention that she is still to get further sum from the Government. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 it is stated thus:

"The Accountant general, Thiruvananthapuram at the time of local audit of Accounts and Registers of Office of the Assistant Educational Officer, Palakkad, objected the refixation of pay of the petitioner at Rs.5,800/- with effect from 1.7.1998 in the pay. Headmasters' scale of pay Rs.5,500- 9,075/- The objection was dropped by the Accountant General only on 5.4.2006 and the fixation of pay in the revised scale has been admitted by this office on 30.5.2006. Then the proposal for revised pensionary benefits has been forwarded to the Accountant General, Thiruvananthapuram by the 4th respondent on 11.12.2006, as per No.A-5054/06, dated 7.12.2006."

2. Learned Government Pleader submits that appropriate action will be taken by the Accountant General in terms of the  WPC NO.3002/07 Page numbers averments made in Para.3 of the counter affidavit extracted above.

3. The other question that is to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to get interest for the delayed payment. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner Miss. Leela Narayanan, the audit objection was dropped as early as on April 5, 2006 and fixation of pay in the revised scale was admitted by the office of respondent No.3 on May 30, 2006. But the proposal for revised pensionary benefits has been forwarded to the office of the Accountant General by respondent No.4 only on December 11, 2006, as is seen admitted in Para.3 of the counter affidavit. There is no explanation why forwarding of the papers to the office of the Accountant General was delayed.

4. Learned Government Pleader points out that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of only on December 11, 2006 and on the same day the paper was forwarded.

5. It has to be noted that the petitioner had to file another writ petition on an earlier occasion when the retiral benefits were withheld. Pending that writ petition, respondents had processed the application and taken steps to forward the papers to the office of the Accountant General. Anyhow, there is no explanation for the delay in forwarding the papers to the office of the Accountant General. It is  WPC NO.3002/07 Page numbers also pointed out by the learned counsel that petitioner was unnecessarily harassed by respondents 3 & 4 alleging that a liability of Rs. 726 had been fastened on her. Subsequently, the said demand was also withdrawn reducing the liability to Rs. 22/-. In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and pass appropriate consequential orders and disburse the entire amount due towards revised pensionary benefits 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. As regards the claim for statutory interest for the delayed payment, I am satisfied that interest of justice will be met if respondents No.3 and 4 are directed to pay jointly Rs 2,500/- towards cost of this proceeding to the petitioner from their pocket. The payment shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

vps  WPC NO.3002/07 Page numbers

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

OP NO.20954/00  WPC NO.3002/07 Page numbers

JUDGMENT

1ST MARCH, 2007 

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.