The petitioner retired as an Assistant Executive Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board, on 31-3-2009. When there was a delay in paying him the pensionary benefits that was due to him, he approached this Court by filing W.P.C. 22084 of 2009. By an interim order dated 24-08-2009, the respondent Board was directed to fix and pay the monthly pension that was due to the petitioner. The respondent Board was also directed to finalise the liability, if any, in respect of the amounts that were payable by the employees before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which according to the respondent Board was the reason for the delay in effecting payments to the petitioner. Thereafter, the monthly pension and also the commuted value of pension was paid to the petitioner, but the DCRG that was due to him was not paid. In the meanwhile, by Ext.P2 judgment, W.P. C. 22084/2009 was disposed directing the respondent Board to fix the liability, if any, against the petitioner and thereafter, to disburse the DCRG to the petitioner after withholding from the said DCRG, any amounts found due from the petitioner by the respondent Board. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to Ext. P2 judgment, the respondent Board passed Ext.P3 order dated 6-10- 2010 sanctioning the entire amount of DCRG that was due to the petitioner without withholding any amount therefrom. Thereafter, Ext. P4 pension revision order was passed by the respondent/Board and although, initially, the petitioner did not receive the revised pension, the same was granted to him subsequently by Ext. P6 order dated 27-5-2013. While sanctioning the revised pensionary benefits, and also the balance DCRG that was due to him, the respondent Board, however, withheld an amount of Rs.50,000/- stated to be towards the liability portion which had to be withheld before releasing the pension revision arrears of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner in the Writ Petition is only with regard to this amount which has been withheld by the respondent/Board. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no justification whatsoever for the respondent Board to withhold the said amount since they had not fixed any liability against the petitioner either before his retirement or immediately thereafter despite the judgment of this Court which enabled them to do so.
3. While no counter affidavit is seen filed in the instant case, it is the stand of the respondent Board that a memo of charges was served to the delinquent officials who were responsible for the non- issuance of invoices to certain consumers and by an order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, it was ordered to conduct an enquiry into the matter and to take appropriate action against the staff responsible and to fix the surcharge excluded from the invoices against them jointly. It is stated however, that no disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner and hence no liability was either quantified or fixed against him, there is no reason forthcoming from the respondent as to how, in the absence of any order fixing the liability against the petitioner and without serving any notice on him and hearing him in the matter, there could be withholding of an amount representing a liability from the revised pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner.
4. I have heard Sri. Pareeth, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board.
5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submission made across the bar, I am of the view that in the instant case, the respondent/Board has not quantified the liability, if any, found to be due and payable by the petitioner at any point of time, either before his retirement or immediately thereafter or even at the stage after there was a direction from this Court in Ext. P2 judgment enabling the respondent Board to fix the said liability. In the absence of fixation of liability on the petitioner through a valid process which involved hearing of the petitioner prior to the fixation of the liability, I do not think it is open for the respondent/Board to unilaterally withhold amounts that are due to an employee by way of pensionary benefits. In the instant case, in so far as the respondent/Board has not been able to point to any valid provision under which it was entitled to withhold the said amount from the pensionary payments due and payable to the petitioner, I quash Ext. P6 order to the extent it withholds an amount of Rs.
50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) from the pensionary benefits that are due and payable to the petitioner. Resultantly, the respondent/Board is directed to effect payment of Rs. 50,000/- which has been withheld by Ext. P6 order, to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This Writ Petition is allowed as above.
ani/24th Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE xxx