G.H. Guttal, J.@mdashThe Petitioner retired on 14th November 1988 as Assistant Educational Officer in the Education Department of the Government of Kerala. To this date he has, not received, his death-cum-retirement gratuity. This petition is to enforce payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity.
2. On 23rd September 1992 the Accountant General directed the recovery of Rs. 7,901, as excess salary paid to the Petitioner. Five years after the Petitioner''s retirement, by Order No. O.A. II (4) 172/88, dated 13th September 1993 (Ext. P-4) and Order No. O.A. II (4)4178/89, dated 14th September 1993 (Ext. P-5) of the Deputy Director of Education (Respondent No. 2) sums of Rs. 2,434.50 and Rs. 6,076 respectively were proposed as the Petitioner''s liability, under Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules.
3. A part of the liability arises out of the approval by the Petitioner of the appointment of certain teachers and salaries paid to them. The Petitioner questions, not without reason, the validity of the proposed liability on this account. The teachers are in service. If salaries have been erroneously paid to them, the amounts could be recovered from them. However, it is not necessary to express any opinion on the validity of the objections.
4. A period of three years after the retirement of employees is allowed for the purpose of quantifying liability of its employees. In this case the first ever attempt to determine the Petitioner''s liability was made by the Government on 13th September 1993-nearly Ave years after his retirement.
5. Note 3 to Rule 3 of Chapter I of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, no doubt grants to the Government a period of three years for the purpose of quantification of the liabilities of a pensioner. It is necessary to restate for the benefit of the employers and administrators what Note 3 actually means. It has these elements (i) the liabilities of an employee should be quantified (ii) they should be quantified before retirement or (iii) they may be quantified after retirement and (iv) if the liability cannot be intimated before the retirement it shall be intimated to him after retirement but within a period of three years on becoming a pensioner. The primary obligation is to determine and quantify the liabilities before an employee retires. That is why the words "intimated to him before retirement if possible" have been used. The words "if possible" imply that possibility of quantifying liabilities before retirement should be seriously explored. If there are circumstances which make it impossible to determine and quantify liabilities before the retirement, the Government has the benefit of extended period of three years. The period of three years, is the outer limit. The Note does not mean that in every case, irrespective of circumstances, the quantification of liabilities should be put off till the outer limit of time arrives. The outer limit of three years is introduced to make allowance for special circumstances like disciplinary proceedings, or other delay causing factors. Delayed quantification of liabilities cannot be made a normal rule.
6. A retired, employee has a right to receive pension, gratuity and other benefits immediately after retirement and cannot be made to wait merely because the administrative machinery moves at a slow pace. The insensitivity to the rights of the employees to receive their rightful dues, in this case, and many Ors., is appalling. Pension and gratuity are property. The administration cannot be permitted to negative the right to such property by delaying the payment negligently or inadvertently. No amount of interest on the unpaid sum of pension or gratuity can undo the harm caused by delay in their payment. There was no justification for delaying the quantification of the Petitioner''s liability beyond three years from the date of his retirement. Till 23rd September 1993 the Accountant General did not quantify liability. Five years after the retirement, the Government claimed that the Petitioner was liable to pay the amounts mentioned in paragraph 2 of this judgment. In my opinion, the Government has exceeded the outer limit of time prescribed by Rule 3 of Chapter I of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. It cannot now recover the liabilities from the Petitioner. The excuse of the State Government that non-liability certificate had to be received from the institutions where from the Petitioner worked during the three years preceding his retirement, does not explain why this was not started well in advance of his retirement and concluded within the statutory limits. The statement filed by the Deputy Director of Education, Koliam is merely a re-statement of his failure to act in time. In my opinion, the Respondents are liable to pay to the Petitioner interest on the death-cum-retirement gratuity, at the rate of 18 percent per annum.
7. I therefore allow this petition and direct the Respondents to this petition to pay to the Petitioner the death-cum-retirement gratuity due to him without deducting any amount towards the liability. I further direct the Respondents to pay interest, at the rate of 18 percent per annum from 1st May 1989 till payment.
8. Subject to these directions, the Original Petition is allowed.
