Ashok Bhushan, Ag.C.J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 09.12.2009 passed by learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The writ petition was filed by appellants, who were the employees of Corporation namely, State Farming Corporation of Kerala Ltd., which is a Government company. A housing loan, at 10.5% rate of interest, was provided by Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) to the employees of the Corporation. The Corporation took a decision on 05.09.1996 to grant house building advance at 7.25% rate to its staff and officers. The said decision was taken subject to approval of the Government. The Corporation proposed to the Government to bear the subsidy. The State Government vide its letter dated 07.08.1999 disapproved the proposal and directed the Corporation to discontinue the scheme for providing interest subsidy. The State Government further directed to recover the amount spend on interest subsidy from the persons concerned. Request for reconsideration was made by the Corporation to the Government, which was turned down. Subsequently, a consequential order dated 18.08.2004 was issued by the Corporation. The petitioners filed the writ petition praying for following reliefs:
“i) to call for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P4 letter dated 07.08.1999 and P10 order dated 09.06.2009 both issued by the 1st respondent and Ext.P6 order dated 18.08.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent directing discontinuance of interest subsidy on housing loans of employees of 2nd respondent and directing steps for recovery of interest subsidy already given, by the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari;
ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the interest subsidy being given by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P2 to the housing loan availed by the petitioners who are employees and retired employees of the 2nd respondent Corporation.”
3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment, dismissed the writ petition holding that the Government as early as on 07.08.1999, having declined to sanction the interest subsidy, there was no justification for continuing the subsidy. The payment being in anticipation of the Government sanction, as sanction having been declined, the petitioners had to refund the benefit received.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Corporation did not communicate the decision of the State Government to the appellants and further the Corporation was running in profit and hence, it ought to have been borne by the Corporation.
5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the Corporation had no authority to grant any interest subsidy without the sanction of the Government, and the Government having declined the sanction the amount has to be recovered. It is submitted that the said decision for interest subsidy puts financial burden, which result in the financial burden to the Government.
6. We have considered the submissions and perused records. Admittedly the Corporation is a Government Company, fully owned and controlled by the State Government. The Board took a decision to extend the interest subsidy subject to approval of the Government. The benefit of interest subsidy was availed by the employees subject to approval of the Government and the approval having been denied, there is no right in the appellants to claim continuance of subsidy or obstructing the recovery of the benefits availed by them.
7. The decision of the Corporation, according to the Corporation itself regarding subsidy was subject to approval of the Government. Without the Government's approval the Corporation could not have extended any subsidy. The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the Corporation being running in profit it ought to have given the said benefit. The Government having already clearly directed to recover the subsidy, Corporation could not act contrary to the directions of the Government and consequential order issued by the Corporation cannot be approved. The learned Single Judge did not commit any error.
In the result, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal, hence it is dismissed.
Sd/-
ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE das Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE