Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 271 (KER)

Tomy v. Union of India

2001-06-01

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR

body2001
JUDGMENT K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. There was a pay revision in tune with the pay scale suggested by the University Grants Commission to be effective from 1.1.1996 in the case of teachers of the Private and Government Colleges. It was effected with respective effect from 1.1.1996 with a condition that arrears arising out of such retrospective pay revision shall be deposited in the provident fund account of each of the incumbent. Therefore, the order of revision of salary and for remitting the arrears in the provident fund account are parts of a composite order. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot opt to accept one part of that order for increase in salary and denounce the other part for deposit. Petitioners can either accept it in toto and denounce in toto. Therefore, the challenge against that part of the order directing deposit of the amount in provident fund account alone cannot be accepted. On that short ground the challenge fails. 2. If the Government has power to order revision with retrospective effect, Government can also pass orders regulating disbursement of arrears due to such retrospective revision. So, the petitioners cannot contend that Government has no power to issue orders regarding deposit of arrears. 3. Payment of interest shall be governed by the rate of interest in money market as regulated by the Reserve Bank and in relation to the type of deposit. When deposit is to be made in the provident fund interest payable for such deposit alone can be paid. Petitioners cannot seek 18% interest. The petitioners have also not shown or placed any details where such rate of interest is paid for any safe and secure deposit. 4. But petitioners are perfectly justified in contending that they shall be paid atleast part of the amount to meet the income tax liability. Even though there is no such prayer in the Original Petition, I am of the view that they shall be shown such indulgence. Because when pay revision is effected with retrospective effect and the amount of arrears is deposited in the provident fund account, it shall be taken as their net income for the purpose of taxation. 5. Even though there is no such prayer in the Original Petition, I am of the view that they shall be shown such indulgence. Because when pay revision is effected with retrospective effect and the amount of arrears is deposited in the provident fund account, it shall be taken as their net income for the purpose of taxation. 5. Therefore, the Original Petition is disposed of as follows: i) Twenty five per cent of the amount of arrears shall be disbursed to the petitioners at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ii) The petitioners shall thereafter, within one month from the date of receipt of the amount produce before the disbursing officer the receipt from the Income Tax department. iii) Failure to produce the tax receipt shall make the petitioners liable to refund the amount within six weeks from the date of disbursement. If no refund is made that shall be recovered from the petitioners.