w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Secretary to The Government, Transport (C) Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Another v/s K.P. Sadanandan (Retired Regional Transport Officer), Ernakuam


Company & Directors' Information:- TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L70109TG1995PLC019116

Company & Directors' Information:- A S TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60222TN1981PTC008886

Company & Directors' Information:- B K B TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300JH1990PTC004226

Company & Directors' Information:- M Y TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090UP2002PTC026917

Company & Directors' Information:- V K TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22219GJ1997PTC032421

Company & Directors' Information:- G S TRANSPORT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U63090WB1989PTC047780

Company & Directors' Information:- G B TRANSPORT (INDIA) PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U63090WB1979PTC032170

Company & Directors' Information:- V A TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202WB1996PTC081673

Company & Directors' Information:- H R T TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63031DL1999PTC102593

Company & Directors' Information:- G M TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60100MH1994PTC076183

Company & Directors' Information:- G L TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60200CH2010PTC032269

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND P TRANSPORT CO. PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U60231OR2006PTC027280

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND P TRANSPORT CO. PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U60231DL2006PTC149707

Company & Directors' Information:- V. N. TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090DL2004PTC125632

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND M TRANSPORT P LTD [Active] CIN = U60300MH1994PTC078458

Company & Directors' Information:- G R C TRANSPORT COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U63090WB1988PTC044164

Company & Directors' Information:- E C TRANSPORT LTD [Active] CIN = U63090WB1987PLC043252

Company & Directors' Information:- D G R TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60231TZ2010PTC016521

Company & Directors' Information:- P T TRANSPORT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U63090WB1989PTC046423

Company & Directors' Information:- TRANSPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60230OR2007PTC009590

Company & Directors' Information:- C R TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090DL2002PTC115826

Company & Directors' Information:- A P M TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60231KL1998PLC012555

Company & Directors' Information:- T. G. TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U02710CT2004PTC017051

Company & Directors' Information:- J. T. TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63031WB2007PTC112457

Company & Directors' Information:- R S R TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60210TZ1961PTC000392

Company & Directors' Information:- A & A TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63010TN2008PTC070171

Company & Directors' Information:- S P TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC059085

Company & Directors' Information:- A B TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60221RJ2000PTC016701

Company & Directors' Information:- G. G. TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60210AS2008PTC008576

Company & Directors' Information:- A P K TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60221TN2005PTC058057

Company & Directors' Information:- S P S TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090WB1997PTC085564

Company & Directors' Information:- TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60210TN1938PTC003051

Company & Directors' Information:- A G L TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090TN2005PTC056306

Company & Directors' Information:- W M TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60210DL2001PTC113547

Company & Directors' Information:- B V M TRANSPORT CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00739KA1998PTC024103

Company & Directors' Information:- A O TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1960PTC011783

Company & Directors' Information:- M R TRANSPORT COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U63090WB1987PTC042118

Company & Directors' Information:- P P TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090DL2003PTC119167

Company & Directors' Information:- D D J TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60210PB1996PTC019190

Company & Directors' Information:- M M TRANSPORT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U60231PB1979PTC004031

Company & Directors' Information:- J P TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60231PB1997PTC019652

Company & Directors' Information:- REGIONAL TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60210PN2001PTC016141

Company & Directors' Information:- N P TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090OR2012PTC015128

Company & Directors' Information:- A N G TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60300MH2013PTC246013

Company & Directors' Information:- L M A TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090MH2002PTC135727

Company & Directors' Information:- K. G. N. TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2017PTC301073

Company & Directors' Information:- B S TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63040TG2015PTC097190

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND A TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60200HP2010PTC031455

Company & Directors' Information:- K. C. TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63030JK2017PTC009897

Company & Directors' Information:- S N TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U60200DL2014PTC264029

Company & Directors' Information:- R J TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63010DL2013PTC248305

Company & Directors' Information:- S. K. T. TRANSPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60230MP2012PTC028886

Company & Directors' Information:- D C V TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60210TZ1960PTC000375

Company & Directors' Information:- P V E TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U60210TN1961PTC004682

Company & Directors' Information:- THE TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1940PLC010301

    OP(KAT). No. 25 of 2021

    Decided On, 01 February 2021

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R. RAVI

    For the Petitioners: Antony Mukkath, Sr. Government Pleader. For the Respondent: O.D. Sivadas, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Alexander Thomas, J.1. The prayer in the afore captioned Original Petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is as follows (See page No.13 of the paper book of this O.P) :“.. ….. .to call for records leading to order dated 11-04-2018 in O.A (Ekm) No.954/2015 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench and to set aside the same dismissing the above Original Application.”2. Heard Sri.Antony Mukkath, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners (Secretary to Government & Transport Commissioner) in the O.P/respondents in the O.A and Sri.O.D.Sivadas, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P/sole applicant in the O.A before the Tribunal.3. The brief of the facts relating to the issuance of the impugned Anx.A6 order dated 25-06-2012 issued in purported exercise of the powers under Rule 59(b) of Part III KSR, as confirmed in the impugned Anx.A8 order dated 21-10-2014 rejecting the Review Petition in that regard is as follows:While the original applicant was working as Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Kozhikode, in the Transport Department and was also holding the additional charge of RTO, Wayanad, disciplinary action was initiated against him as per Anx.A1 Memo of Charges dated 07-01-2020 along with the statement of allegations and imputations attached thereto, as per Anx.A2. The allegations are to the effect that the applicant has committed grave negligence and dereliction of duty in having failed to produce the superior officer's inspection remarks register in spite of asking for the same and that files were piled in bundles sacked away in sacks all over the office, without taking any action whatsoever to destroy the out dated/expired dossiers and that he failed to attend any revenue recovery (RR) conference convened by the Addl District Magistrate, Kozhikode. In reply to Anxs.A1 Memo of Charges issued by the competent authority of the Government and Anx.A2 Statement of allegations, the original applicant has submitted Anx.A3 reply dated 24-03-2010 to the competent authority concerned. It appears that no further action was taken in pursuance of Anx.A1 & Anx.A2 and that the applicant had thereafter retired from service on 31-01-2011. Much after his retirement, the competent authority of the State Government in the Transport Department has issued the impugned Anx.A4 show cause notice dated 30-01-2012 directing the applicant to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.500/- per month should not be reduced by recourse to the powers conferred under Rule 59(b) of Part III Kerala Service Rules (KSR), in view of the allegations raised earlier, which are almost replication of the allegations dealt with in Anx.A1 Memo of charges & Anx.A2 Statement of allegations. The applicant had duly submitted Anx.A5 reply dated 02-03-2012 to the competent authority concerned. Thereafter, the competent authority of the State Government has issued the impugned Anx.A6 order dated 25-06-2012, ordering that an amount of Rs.500/- will be withheld/reduced from the monthly pension sanctioned to the applicant, as his service was found thoroughly not to be satisfactory.A reading of the impugned Anx.A6 order dated 25-06-2012 would disclose that the main grounds for taking action thereunder were in relation to the allegations raised in Anx.A4 show cause notice, which as mentioned hereinabove, is a replication of the earlier allegations, which found a place in Anx.A1 Memo of Charges & Anx.A2 Statement of allegations. Being aggrieved by Anx.A6, the applicant had preferred a review petition in terms of Note 2 of Rule 59 (b) read with Rule 35 of KCS(CC&A) Rules before the competent authority of the State Government. Thereafter, the competent authority concerned has dismissed Anx.A7 Review Petition as per the impugned Anx.A8 order dated 21-10-2014, holding that there are no grounds for reviewing the matter ordered in Anx.A6. It is these proceedings at Anxs.A6 & A8 that is being challenged by the applicant before the Tribunal by filing the aforesaid original application. The Tribunal has allowed the pleas of the applicant and has quashed the impugned Anxs.A6 & Anx.A8 proceedings on the ground that, taking recourse to the powers under Rule 59(b) of part III KSR in respect of the allegations earlier raised in Anxs.A1 & A2 will not be justified in law. The Tribunal has allowed the pleas of the applicant in Ext.P1 O.A by rendering the impugned Ext.P5 final order dated 11-04-2018 in the said O.A (Ekm) No.954/2015. It is this final order at Ext.P5 that is impugned in this petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India at the instance of the competent authority of the State Government and department concerned.4. Heard both sides.5. The facts are not in any dispute. There is no dispute that earlier the very same allegations were raised against the applicant by issuance of Anxs.A1 Memo of Charges & A2 Statement of allegations purportedly in exercise of the powers under Rule 15 of KCS (CC&A) Rules for contemplating the initiation of major penalty proceedings. The applicant had duly submitted Anx.A3 reply thereto. There is no dispute that no action has been taken thereafter to finalise Anxs.A1 & A2 in the manner known to law, at any point of time before the applicant had retired from the service. No proceedings as contemplated under Rule 3 of Part III KSR has also been initiated against the petitioner, on the ground that the unfinalised proceedings in terms of Anxs.A1 & A2 is sought to be duly finalised and completed by the competent authority of the State Government by taking recourse to the procedure contemplated in the operative portion of Rule 3 of Part III KSR in the matter of the proposed withholding of pension after the retirement of the applicant. On the other hand, the applicant has been duly allowed to retire from the service on 31-01-2011 and his pension benefits has also been sanctioned. It is much thereafter that the competent authority of the State Government has issued the impugned Anx.A4 show cause notice dated 30-01-2012 purportedly for taking action under Rule 59 (b) of Part III KSR on the purported ground that, the service of the applicant cannot be said to be thoroughly unsatisfactory in view of the allegations raised in Anx.A4, which is a replication of the allegations in Anxs.A1 & A3. This has resulted in the impugned Anx.A6 order, which has been confirmed in Anx.8 review order. The matter raised in this case is no longer res integra and is covered in favour of the original applicant/ respondent herein by decisions of this Court as in Joseph v. State of Kerala [(1994) 1 KLT 716] and Ponnamma v. Secretary to Government [2011 (2) KLT 277]. It will be profitable to refer to para No.14 of the decision rendered by this Court in Joseph's case supra [(1994) 1 KLT 716 p.724-725], which reads as follows:“14. Of course, under Rule 59 the Government is empowered to make such reductions in the amount of pension as they think proper in case the service of the employee has not been thoroughly satisfactory. The Rule also declares that full pension admissible under this Rule is not to be given as a matter of course. The power conferred under 59 is a power to be exercised normally at the end of the career of an employee. As such the question whether service of a Government servant has or has not been thoroughly satisfactory has to be normally decided taking note of the service records for the entire period of service to put in by the employee concerned. It is only reasonable to assume that an action under Rule 59 normally would be initiated only on the basis of proposals made by subordinate authorities under whose direct control the employee might have rendered service and to whom all the service records of the employee concerned may be readily available. Of course, as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the Government may suo motu, even without a proposal from the subordinate authority pass orders in exercise of the power conferred on it under Rule 59. In this case there is no contention that any of the subordinate authority has made any proposal to reduce the pension. To initiate action under Rule 59 against the petitioner, Government has to form a bona fide opinion that the service of the employee has not been thoroughly satisfactory after giving the employee concerned an opportunity to explain and vindicate himself against the proposal to form such an opinion as the basis for issuing an order under that Rule. There cannot be much dispute about these aspects of the Rule.”6. Later this Court in the decision in Ponnamma's case supra [2011 (2) KLT 277] has held categorically that having initiated disciplinary proceedings for specific acts of misconducts, without finding any guilty by concluding proceedings as contemplated in law, no action under Rule 59(b) of Part III of KSR can be initiated on the basis of the very same allegations of misconducts and that the satisfaction of the Government under Rule 59 should not be a subjective satisfaction of a person passing the order but must be an objective satisfaction on the basis of the acceptable materials warranting such satisfaction which must be made known to the Government servant that the service of the beneficiary concerned cannot be said to thoroughly satisfactory. Further this Court has held in Joseph's case supra that, Rule 59(b) of Part III of KSR cannot be taken as a shortcut for the disciplinary proceedings under KCS (CC&A) Rules and the Government cannot without completing the disciplinary proceedings for specific acts of misconducts on the basis of very same alleged misconduct, can find an employee guilty and enter a conclusion that the employee's services have not been thoroughly satisfactory based on the very same misconducts for which the government servant could not be found guilty following a valid procedure. It will be profitable to refer to Para No.6 of the decision of this Court in Ponnamma's case supra [2011 (2) KLT 277 pp.284 & 285], which reads as follows:“6. Ext.P10 order although could have been independently passed under R.59 (b) of K.S.R., without a separate enquiry as such, I am of opinion that insofar as, in Ext.P10, the conclusion that the petitioner's services under the Government has not been thoroughly satisfactory, is based purely on the five misconducts for which petitioner has been found guilty in Ext.P4, I am of the opinion Ext.P10 is also vitiated for the same reason. I am of opinion that R.59(b) is not a short cut for disciplinary proceedings under KCS (CCA) Rules. The Government cannot without completing the disciplinary proceedings for specific acts of misconducts on the basis of very same misconduct, find an employee guilty and enter a conclusion that the employee's services have not been thoroughly satisfactory based on the very same misconducts for which the government servant could not be found guilty following a valid procedure. In this connection it must be noted that 'reduction of pension' is also a specific penalty imposable on a government servant under R.11 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Having initiated disciplinary proceedings for specific acts of misconducts without finding the government servant guilty (sic) by concluding the proceedings as contemplated by law, no (sic) action under R.59(b) of Part III of the K.S.R. can be initiated on the basis of the very same allegations of misconducts. If that be permitted, then unscrupulous superior officers can, knowing well that there is no evidence to sustain disciplinary proceedings, immediately before the retirement of the government servant, after raising allegations unsupported by materials on record, without concluding the disciplinary proceedings, straightaway initiate proceedings under R.59(b) for which no separate enquiry and finding of guilt is warranted. R.59(b) is intended to be initiated against a government servant whose overall performance in the whole of his/her service has not been thoroughly unsatisfactory. It is not intended as an action against a government servant on the basis of allegations of specific misconduct, which could not be validly proved in disciplinary proceedings under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. In other words R.59(b) is not a short cut to punish a person against whom specific allegations of misconduct could not be validly proved by resort to proceedings under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. In this case that is exactly what has been done in this case. The charges for which the petitioner has been visited with a decision under R.59(b), were the very same charges which have not been proved in valid proceedings under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Therefore, I am more than satisfied that the petitioner could not have been proceeded against under R.59 (b) solely based on the very same charges. The satisfaction of the government under R.59(b) of Part III of K.S.R., that the service of a government servant were not thoroughly satisfactory should not be a subjective satisfaction of the person passing the order under that Rule, but must be an objective satisfaction on the basis of acceptable materials on record warranting such satisfaction, which must be made known to the government servant with an opportunity to the government servant to prove that the materials cannot be relied upon. Mere allegations or suspicion of misconducts cannot take the place of such materials and the materials should be sufficient for a reasonable man to come to the conclusion that the government servant's service was not thoroughly satisfactory. When ordinarily the government does not find it necessary to take action under R.59(b), against government servants who have been punished for misconducts even with compulsory retirement, one fails to understand how they can take action against one on the basis of allegations of misconducts, which have not been validly proved in a disciplinary proceedings. If such unfettered power is conceded to the government it can lead to arbitrariness, discrimination, victimisation, etc., especially in a situation where political vendetta against government servants who do not toe the line of the powers that be are very common these days. In the above circumstances, Ext.P10 is also unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. Consequently, there would be a direction to the respondents to disburse the arrears of pension withheld from the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within in two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”7. Rule 59 including the Notes appended thereto of Rule 3 of Part III KSR provides as follows:“Rule 59. Award of full pension.-(a) The full pension admissible under this rule not to be given as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered has been really approved.(b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the Government may make such reduction in the amounts as they think proper.Note 1.- Government may review their orders if the affected employee makes a request within a period of three months from the date of the orders.Note-2.- This rule does not operate to authorise a reduction of ordinary pension either to nothing or to a nominal amount.”8. Para No.9 on internal page No.3 of Anx.A6 order dated 25-06-2012 {see page No.47 of the paper book} reads as follows :“9. Government have examined the matter in detail in the light of the Vigilance enquiry report, the enquiry report of DTC(NZ), the explanation furnished by the accused officers and the report of the T.C. The delinquent officers have failed to furnish satisfactory explanation for the charges levelled against them. The irregularities committed by the delinquent officers are clearly proved in Vigilance Enquiry Report and subsequent enquiry conducted by the Deputy Transport Commissioner (North Zone). They deserve appropriate punishment for the same.”9. The last paragraph of the impugned Anx.A8 order dated 21-10-2014 given on internal page No.2 thereof {See page No.54 of the paper book} reads as follows:“The review petitioners were imposed with a punishment for the proven misdemeanor in their part and the punishment imposed commensurate with the gravity of offence committed and is in accordance with provisions of KCS (CC & A) Rules. They had failed to putforth any corroborative evidence or supporting facts to review the punishment imposed. There exist no cogent grounds to review the punishment imposed. Since the review petition is devoid of merit, it is rejected.”10. Thus it can be seen from a mere reading of the impugned proceedings at Anxs.A6 & A8 that the Governmental authority themselves have proceeded as if the entire decision making process in exercise of the powers under Rule 59(b) of Part III of KSR would amount to infliction of a punishment of penalty. Therefore, this would clearly show that, the entire process, which culminated in Anxs.A6 & A8 is nothing but a colourable exercise of power and cannot be said to be a proper exercise of power in terms of the provisions included in Rule 59(b) of Part III of KSR. In the instant case, the very same allegations as per Anx.A4 have found a place in Anxs.A1 & A2. The Governmental authorities themselves have given up any action thereunder and had allowed the applicant to retire from service and had even sanctioned him the beneficiary benefits. It is long thereafter that, Anx.A4 show cause notice has been issued in purported exercise of powers under Rule 59 (b) of Part III KSR citing the very same allegations in Anxs.A1 & A2.11. Therefore, the entire subject matter of the consideration which led to the issuance of Anx.A4, which in turn led to the culmination of Anxs.A6 & A8, is on the basis of the specific allegations of misconduct raised earlier in Anxs.A1 & A2, which was later dropped. What is conceived in terms of Rule 59(b) of Part III of KSR is not to cases of that nature, but should be dealing with rare cases, where an objective consideration of the service career of the pensioner would disclose that his or her service cannot be said to be thoroughly satisfactory. For holding delinquent guilty for specific alleged misconducts, the power available is as per the regular provisions contained in KCS (CC&A) Rules, which have been availed of by the Government by the issuance of Anx.A1 Memo of Charges & A2 Statement of allegations. Thereafter, if the Governmental authorities concerned wanted to proceed in a case like this, it is for them to either finalise the disciplinary proceedings in a proper and reasonable manner by passing final orders in the disciplinary proceedings after fulfilling all the procedural formalities. If, for any valid reason, the same could not have been done before retirement of the incumbent, in spite of the bonafide and diligent efforts of the authority concerned, then the option to resort to the proceedings being continued in terms of the operative portion of Rule 3 of Part III KSR. The Governmental authorities concerned have no case that there were any serious impediments for finalising the proceedings initiated in terms of Anxs.A1

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

& A2. Having dropped such proceedings it will not be open to resurrect the same by taking recourse to the purported exercise of the powers under Rule 59(b) of part III of KSR, which would be nothing but a colourable exercise of the power. In administrative law, this is described by jurists as fraud on the power or colourable exercise of the power. This is clearly legally impermissible and the same would be illegal or ultra vires. This has been the consistent view taken by this Court in decisions as in Joseph's case supra [1994 (1) KLT 716] and Ponnamma's Case supra [2011 (2) KLT 277]. The Tribunal has considered the factual scenario and has applied the dictum laid down by this Court in Ponnamma's case supra [2011 (2) KLT 277]. The Tribunal cannot be faulted with in any manner for having arrived at the impugned conclusions in the final order at Ext.P5. In other words, no grounds have been made out by the petitioners for warranting the interdiction of this Court with the considered view taken by the Tribunal as per Ext.P5 by taking recourse to the extraordinary discretionary powers conferred under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.12. Sri.O.D.Sivadas, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P/Original applicant would point out that, even after quashment of the impugned orders at Anxs.A6 & A8 by the Tribunal as per Ext.P5 final order, the petitioners have not refunded the due amounts to the applicant unlawfully withheld in terms of Anxs.A6 & A8. If that be so, the petitioners will ensure that the amounts so withheld and recovered from the petitioner's pension should be immediately disbursed to him without any further delay, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Further the pensionary amounts should be disbursed to the applicant, without deducting the amounts covered by Anxs.A6 & A8 as the same has already been quashed by the Court, correctness of which has been confirmed by this Court hereinabove.The petition fails and therefore the same will stand dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs.
O R