The Kerala High Court Division Bench, consisting of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P.M. Manoj, dismissed a petition by S. Gopalakrishnan Potti seeking penal interest for delayed pensionary benefits and back wages. The Court upheld the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s (KAT) decision, finding that delays in disbursing benefits were justified due to pending vigilance proceedings.
Background
S. Gopalakrishnan Potti, serving as Joint Development Commissioner, was suspended in 2000 following a vigilance case. He was reinstated in 2001 but denied promotion due to the ongoing case. Despite this, he was promoted as Additional Development Commissioner in 2008 following an interim High Court order and retired later that year. Although acquitted in 2010, his pensionary benefits were delayed until July 2011. He filed the petition seeking penal interest for the period between 2009 and 2012, arguing that employees in similar situations had received timely benefits.
Arguments
The petitioner argued that his pension and gratuity were unjustly delayed, despite his honorable acquittal. He emphasized that his suspension period should have been regularized and sought back wages and penal interest.
In response, the State, represented by Senior Government Pleader A.J. Varghese, cited Rule 31(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules and Rule 3A(a) of Part III Kerala Service Rules (KSR), which allow withholding benefits during pending disciplinary proceedings. The State maintained that there was no undue delay, as benefits were released promptly after his acquittal.
Court’s Observations
The Court upheld the KAT’s findings, agreeing that withholding pensionary benefits during vigilance or disciplinary proceedings was justified under Rule 3A(a) of Part III KSR. It distinguished the petitioner’s case from precedents like Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 2015 SC 2904), which involved administrative errors, not vigilance cases.
On the issue of penal interest, the Court noted that the delay in releasing benefits fell within the permissible three-year period. Citing R. Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala (2015 (3) KLT 755), it reiterated that delays caused by judicial proceedings are not subject to penal interest.
The Court also clarified that retrospective promotions do not automatically entitle individuals to back wages unless the promotion was wrongfully denied. It held that the petitioner’s notional promotion was delayed for valid reasons and did not merit financial compensation.
Lastly, the Court emphasized its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, explaining that it cannot re-evaluate factual findings of the Tribunal unless there is a manifest error, which was not present in this case.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the petition, denying penal interest and back wages, and affirmed the Tribunal’s decision that the delay in disbursing benefits was justified.
➡️ Click here for More Court Cases
