State Of Kerala v. C.Mony
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/24TH ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 3640 of 2005 (G) --------------------------- PETITIONERS:
--------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT L.M.S. COMPOUND, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL RESPONDENT:
-------------------- C.MONY.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 3640 of 2005 (G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :- ----------------------------------- EXT.P1 - COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA.
EXT.P2 - COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.98/01/LSGD DATED 31.03.2001. EXT.P3 - COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.ESTT.C3/6799/2003/CRD DATED 15.10.2003.
EXT.P4 - GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.5296/EB2/2004/LSGD DATED 18.10.2004 ADDRESSED TO COMMISSIONER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.P5 - COPY OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA UNDER SECTION 12(1) IN COMPLAINT NO.478/03 DATED 20.07.2004.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE sp
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
--------------------------------------- W.P(C). No.3640 of 2005 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2015.
JUDGMENT
The Government challenges the order of the Lok Ayukta at Ext.P5 on the short ground that the Lok Ayukta could not have entertained the complaint filed by the respondent, since it did not have jurisdiction to consider the issue. The claim, admittedly, was one with respect to the wrong fixation of pay, which, according to the petitioner, caused loss of substantial amounts, while computing the pensionary benefits. The lack of jurisdiction was raised before the Lok Ayukta by the Government.
2. The Lok Ayukta, considering the objection, extracted Clause (d) of Second Schedule, which is under: "Action taken in respect of appointment, removal, pay, discipline, superannuation or other matters relating to conditions of service of public servants but, not including actions relating to claims for pension, gratuity, provident fund or to any claims which arises on retirement, removal or termination of service".
WP(C) No.3640 of 2005 Finding that the petitioner's contention is that the wrong fixation of pay resulted in the pensionary claim, being substantially reduced the Lok Ayukta went ahead and considered the issue. It is to be specifically noticed that the jurisdiction conferred was only with respect to any claim, which arises on retirement, removal or termination of service. The challenge against the wrong fixation of pay was not one arising on retirement and hence the Lok Ayukta could not have entertained such claim. Ext.P5 is set aside for reason of lack of jurisdiction. The writ petition is allowed.
Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. to Judge sp/16/10/15