The petitioner retired from the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board as an Assistant Engineer on 30.4.2004. The DCRG and commuted value of pension were not paid to the petitioner. Originally, an objection regarding want of details of repayment of conveyance advance was raised. Details of conveyance advance with interest along with the non liability certificate and service book of the petitioner were forwarded by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent. Despite the same, no DCRG and balance commuted value of pension have been disbursed to the petitioner. The petitioner has been served with Ext.P2 letter dated 24.6.2006 received by the petitioner on 2.1.2007 stating that the 2nd respondent proposes to make some recoveries from the retirement benefits due to the petitioner. This is apparently on the basis of the opinion of the 2nd respondent that there were some irregularities in the grant of third higher grade to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that grant of third higher grade was perfectly correct. Therefore, the proposal to make recovery of the alleged excess amount drawn by the petitioner on grant of third higher grade is illegal is the contention raised. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“1) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P2 and quash the same.
2) A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to pay the DCRG and balance amount of commuted value of pension to the petitioner forthwith.
3) A declaration to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to third higher grade on completion of 25 years of service in the post of Sub Engineer as on 1-1-04 on the basis of Ext.P3 Board Order and that the proposal for recovery of alleged excess drawn by the petitioner because of the third higher grade is unsustainable.
4) A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to pay 9% interest on amount of DCRG and balance commuted value of pension payable to the petitioner w.e.f. 1-7-04 forthwith.”
2. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in this writ petition. But, it is submitted that the DCRG and the balance amount of commuted value of pension have been disbursed, after deducting certain amount, which is the amount withheld on account of excess salary drawn on account of the irregular fixation of the third higher grade. It is also submitted that the pension due to the petitioner has also been correspondingly reduced on that ground. Therefore, the only question to be considered is whether the respondents are correct in holding that the third higher grade granted to the petitioner irregularly and in deducting alleged excess salary drawn and reducing pension due to the petitioner on that count. As I have already stated, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has never been put on notice regarding re-fixation of his pay on account of irregular grant of third higher grade. No liability also has been fixed on the petitioner on account of the same within three years from the date of retirement as stipulated in Note 3 of Part III of KSR with notice to the petitoner. That being so, the third higher grade granted to the petitioner could not have been validly revised, recovery of excess salary paid and pension reduced.
3. In the above circumstances, the petitioner shall be paid all retirement benefits as if the third higher grade was granted correctly and refunding all arrears denied to the petitioner on account of the same. The petitioner's retirement benefits shall be recomputed taking into account the third higher grade as validly granted. Orders in this regard shall be passed and all arrears disbursed to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd