JUDGMENT : S.MANIKUMAR, J. Petitioners herein are the respondents and the respondent herein is the complainant in Complaint No.2122/2005 on the file of the Kerala Lok Ayukta. Complaint No.2122/05 was filed by the respondent seeking for a direction to sanction pension and Provident Fund amount to her. 2. Petitioners herein sought for the following reliefs: i. To call for the records leading to Exts.P23 & P27 and to quash the same to the extent they direct to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the complainant/respondent herein for pensionary benefits. ii. To declare that the respondent is not entitled for any interest on her pension and pensionary benefits for the reason that she submitted a proper application for pension only on 24.12.2008. 3. Short facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The complainant/respondent herein entered service in the Health Department as Junior Public Health Nurse on 01.09.1974 and she continued as such, till 06.06.1995, at the Community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara, as evident from Exhibit P2, copy of the attendance register. It is contended by the writ petitioners that after 06.06.1995, the complainant/respondent was unauthorisedly absent and no leave application or application for voluntary retirement was submitted by her. However, no disciplinary action was taken against her based on her unauthorised absence, for want of proper communication from the then Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara. According to the petitioners, after filing of the complaint before the Lok Ayukta, the complainant/respondent submitted Exhibit P3 application for closure of General Provident Fund on 27.05.2004. 4. On the basis of Exhibit P7 letter dated 11.11.2005, the Accountant General (A&E) Kerala, sanctioned GPF vide Exhibit P8 order, based on the actual date of retirement i.e. 30.06.2000. Exhibit-P7 letter is reproduced: “No.E/613/04/CHCK Office of the Community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara, Date.14/11/05. From The Medical Officer in Charge To The Accountant General (A&E), Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram. Sir, Sub:-G.P.F. -Application for GPF Closure in respect of Smt.J.Remadevi, Junior P.H. Nurse – Authorisation for final payment – Request for – Regarding. Ref:-1) Your letter No.PF5/el-230. Dated.11/11/05. 2) This office letter even No.dated 30/11/04, 6/4/05, 30/8/05 and 29/10/05. I may invite your kind attention to the reference 1st cited above and to report that the voluntary retirement of Smt.J.Remadevi, Junior P.H. Nurse has not been accepted by the District Medical Officer of Health, Thiruvananthapuram so far. Ref:-1) Your letter No.PF5/el-230. Dated.11/11/05. 2) This office letter even No.dated 30/11/04, 6/4/05, 30/8/05 and 29/10/05. I may invite your kind attention to the reference 1st cited above and to report that the voluntary retirement of Smt.J.Remadevi, Junior P.H. Nurse has not been accepted by the District Medical Officer of Health, Thiruvananthapuram so far. I may also report to you that the actual date of retirement of the above person was on 30/6/2000 A.N. Her present age is above 60 years. Hence, I request that immediate steps may please be taken to issue the authorisation for final payment of G.P.F. in respect of Smt.J.Remadevi, Junior P.H. Nurse considering her present age. A copy of the page No.3 of S.S.L.C. Book of the above person is enclosed herewith for proving her date of birth. This may please be treated as most urgent. Yours faithfully, MEDICAL OFFICER IN CHARGE” The amounts were disbursed to the complainant on 05.11.2005 and the same was reported to the Honourable Lok Ayukta. 5. However, the complainant disputed the amount and claimed that a sum of Rs.36,063/-was due to her, in addition to Rs.1,48,529/-paid to her on 05.11.2005. Lok Ayukta, by Exhibit P11 order dated 29.12.2005, directed the respondent therein to pay the entire balance amount legally due to the complainant, within one month and to file further action taken report. 6. By communication dated 17.2.2006, the Accountant General informed that as per sub-rule (4)(ii) of Rule 15 of General Provident Fund (Kerala Rules), if the application for closure is received in their office, after a period of one year of retirement, interest shall be admissible only upto a period of one year. Hence, the difference in the amount claimed by the subscriber has been finally settled and no balance was due to her as per their office records. Exhibit P13 communication dated 17.02.2006 of the Senior Accounts Officer, Indian Audit and Accounts Department, addressed to the Director, Directorate of Health Services, Thiruvananthapuram, reads as under: “No.PF5/Comp/5.6.2018 Date 17.2.2006 The Director, Directorate of Health Services, Thiruvananthapuram. Sir, Sub: GPF closure in respect of Smt.J.Remadevi – Jr.PH Nurse, Mdl.24592 Community Health Centre-Kanyakulangara – Reg. Ref: No.AD6-43411/05/DHS dt. 4.2.06. Please refer to the letter cited. The closure application in respect of Smt.Remadevi, Jr.PH Nurse, Community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara was received in this office on 30.11.2004. Sir, Sub: GPF closure in respect of Smt.J.Remadevi – Jr.PH Nurse, Mdl.24592 Community Health Centre-Kanyakulangara – Reg. Ref: No.AD6-43411/05/DHS dt. 4.2.06. Please refer to the letter cited. The closure application in respect of Smt.Remadevi, Jr.PH Nurse, Community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara was received in this office on 30.11.2004. In this application, the Medical Officer in charge of Community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara had stated that she had applied for voluntary retirement with effect from 15.8.95. But the order sanctioning voluntary retirement has not been called for vide this office letter No.PF5/cl.230 dt.17.1.05. The Medical Officer in charge in his letter No.E/613/04 CHCK dt.29.10.05 informed that the order of sanctioning voluntary retirement and the passbook were not seen available in this office records and also intimated that the actual date of retirement of the subscriber was 30.6.2000 A.N. and requested this office to close the GPF a/c on the basis of the retirement date. Her GPF a/c has been closed allowing interest upto 30.6.2001 and authorised Rs.148529/-to the subscriber based on the retirement date, 30.6.2000 vide slip No.46685 dt. 23.11.05. As per sub rule 4(ii) under Rule 15 of GPF(K) Rules, if the application for closure is received in this office after a period of one year of retirement, interest shall be admissible only upto a period of one year. Hence the difference in the amount claimed by the subscribers. The GPF a/c has been settled finally and no balance is due to her as per this office records. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Sr. Accounts Officer.” 7. On the basis of Exhibit P13 letter of the Accountant General (A&E), Kerala, the Director of Health Services, Thiruvananthapuram, the 1st petitioner herein submitted Exhibit P14 report dated 18.02.2006 to Lok Ayukta stating that no further action is pending at their end. On the basis of the above report, Lok Ayukta closed the complaint vide Exhibit P15 order dated 13.09.2006 holding that, though the complainant has contended that she had produced the closure application in the year 1996 itself, along with the application for Voluntary Retirement from Service, she has not produced any evidence to prove that she has already sent an application. That apart, there is no record to show that the complainant has already filed General Provident Fund application before the Lok Ayukta. That apart, there is no record to show that the complainant has already filed General Provident Fund application before the Lok Ayukta. Exhibit P15 order passed by the Lok Ayukta dated 13.09.2006 reads as under: “Complaint No.2122/2005 Complainant J.Remadevi S.S.Bhavan, Karoor, Pothencode P O, Pin : 695 584 Respondents 1. The Directorate Health Service, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. District Medical Officer Thiruvananthapuram. 3. Medical Officer Community Centre, Kanyakulangara Thiruvananthapuram. By Senior Government Pleader ORDER Government Pleader made available to me a communication No.AD6-43411/05/DHS dated 30.8.2006 to the effect that GPF Closure application was filed by the complainant on 27.5.2004 and it was received by the Medical Officer in charge, Community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara on 29.5.2004. Though the complainant has contended that she preferred GPF Closure application in the year 1995 itself along with her application for voluntary retirement, she has not produced any evidence to prove that she has filed such an application. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant has filed GPF closure application before 27.5.2004. In view of the fact that the respondent has paid the GPF amount along with interest from 30.6.2000 the actual date of retirement upto 30.6.2001, the complainant is not entitled to any further interest for the P.F. amount. Accordingly this complaint is closed.” 8. Thereafter, the complainant filed Exhibit P16 interim application on 23.11.2006, in the closed complaint, stating that voluntary retirement application was already submitted 10 years before and after 15.08.1995, no reply was given to her on that application and, therefore, she had sought for a direction to pass order on the Voluntary Retirement Service application. 9. On the averments made in Exhibit P16, Lok Ayukta has reviewed its earlier order dated 13.09.2006 closing the complaint, as per Exhibit P21 order dated 25.5.2007, which reads as under: “Complaint No.2122/2005 Complainant J.Remadevi S.S.Bhavan, Karoor, Pothencode P O, Pin : 695 584 Respondents 1. The Directorate Health Service, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. District Medical Officer Thiruvananthapuram. 3. Medical Officer Community Centre, Kanyakulangara Thiruvananthapuram. By Senior Government Pleader ORDER Counter is filed by first respondent. Heard, I find there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record in closing the complaint without considering the contentions of the complainant with regard to her offer for voluntary retirement. Therefore, the order dated 13.9.2006 closing the complaint is reviewed and the complaint is restored to file. Heard, I find there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record in closing the complaint without considering the contentions of the complainant with regard to her offer for voluntary retirement. Therefore, the order dated 13.9.2006 closing the complaint is reviewed and the complaint is restored to file. Post the complaint for filing detailed written statement by respondents post on 3.7.2007.” 10. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed a statement dated 2.7.2007 before the Lok Ayukta, pointing out that no proper proposal for sanctioning the pensionary benefits was received from the complainant and on receipt of proper application for sanctioning pensionary benefits, the same would be considered and appropriate orders will be passed. Thereafter, the complainant submitted a formal proposal, for sanctioning pensionary benefits on 24.12.2008. The same was forwarded to the Accountant General, Thiruvananthapuram, for sanction, on 16.01.2009. The Accountant General sanctioned pension and pensionary benefits to the complainant on 9.7.2009, as per Exhibit P22(a). 11. Thereafter, the complainant pressed for interest on the pensionary benefits with effect from the date of application for Voluntary Retirement from Service i.e. from 15.8.1995 onwards. On the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant, Lok Ayukta passed Exhibit P23 order dated 15.7.2009 observing that there is no justification for denying benefits for getting interest on the amount payable to the complainant on retirement benefits and the respondents are liable to pay interest to the complainant on retirement benefits payable to her. Ext.P23 reads as under: “ORDER Complainant entered service in the Health Department as Nurse in 1974. She was working as Nurse in Kanyakulangara Public Health Centre till 31.07.1995. On 01.08.1995 she gave application for leave and after two months gave an application for voluntary retirement. This complaint was filed for giving direction to the respondents to pay to the complainant the amount due towards Provident Fund and pension. On 13.09.06 this complaint was closed by this forum on taking note of the fact that the amount due towards Provident Fund was paid to the complainant. In the above order it was said that the complainant was not entitled to any further interest on the Provident Fund by pointing out that there was nothing to show that complainant filed GPF closure application before 27.05.04. GPF amount was paid to the complainant along with interest from 30.06.2000 till 30.06.2001. 2. In the above order it was said that the complainant was not entitled to any further interest on the Provident Fund by pointing out that there was nothing to show that complainant filed GPF closure application before 27.05.04. GPF amount was paid to the complainant along with interest from 30.06.2000 till 30.06.2001. 2. Complainant filed an 1A No 622/06 for reviewing the order dated 13.09.06 and for taking the complaint on file for granting the other reliefs prayed for in the complaint. An order was made by this forum on the above IA on 25.05.2007 reviewing the order dated 13.09.2006 by which complaint was closed and taking back the complaint to file. On 09.12.08 third respondent filed statement to the effect that service book of the complainant was reconstructed and the service details for the period from 22.05.1985 to 17.06.1986 were missing in the service register. This forum gave direction to the respondent to give missing details and take appropriate steps to sanction pension to the complainant and file further report. On 08.01.09 this forum made an order on the basis of the statement filed by the third respondent to the effect that all papers of the complainant duly filled and signed by him were forwarded to DMO, Thiruvananthapuram on 06.01.09. In the above order there is a direction to the second respondent DMO to forward the pension papers to the AG for authorisation. On 08.04.09 learned Government Pleader submitted that proposal for giving pensionary benefits to the complainant had already been forwarded to the AG and that on receipt of sanction from AG action will be taken for releasing pensionary benefits to the complainant. Learned counsel appearing for the complaint submitted on that day that complainant was entitled to get interest and the case was adjourned for hearing the question whether the complainant was entitled to get interest. 3. The contention raised by the respondents through out was that there was no application given by the complainant for voluntary retirement. Respondent would say that no steps could be taken for allowing the complainant to retire voluntarily since there was no application given by her. An amount of Rs.1,48,529/-was given to the complainant towards PF with interest on taking the date of retirement of complainant as 30.06.2000 because if she continued in service she would have retired on that day. Respondent would say that no steps could be taken for allowing the complainant to retire voluntarily since there was no application given by her. An amount of Rs.1,48,529/-was given to the complainant towards PF with interest on taking the date of retirement of complainant as 30.06.2000 because if she continued in service she would have retired on that day. Complainant produced before this forum a letter sent by the AG on 17.02.2006 to the Director of Health Services in which it is said that GPF closure application in respect of the complainant was received in the office of the AG on 30.11.2004. There is also statement in the letter that in the application Medical Officer in charge of Community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara had stated that the complainant had applied for voluntary retirement with effect from 15.08.1995. Accountant General says in the letter that order sanctioning voluntary retirement had not been received along with the application for closure of PF and that the order had been called for. There is also mention in the letter of AG that he was informed by the Medical Officer that order sanctioning voluntary retirement and the pass book were not available in his office records and that actual date of retirement of the complainant was 30.06.2000. The request made by the Medical Officer was to close the GPF amount on the basis of the above retirement day. It is obvious from the above letter that on 30.11.2004 a letter was received in the AG's office in which Medical Officer in charge of the community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara had stated that complainant had applied for voluntary retirement with effect from 15.08.1995. That shows that the application for voluntary retirement was given by the complainant even before 30.11.2004. There is no justification for denying benefits of getting interest on the amount payable to the complainant on retirement. Respondents are liable to pay interest to the complainant on retirement benefits payable to her. For filing action taken report adjourned to 14.09.09. 12. Aggrieved by Exhibit P23 order, the Medical Officer, Community Centre, Kanyakulangara, 3rd petitioner herein, has filed a Review Petition before the Honourable Lok Ayukta, which is numbered as I.A.No.642/2009. The complainant filed an objection against the action taken report with a counter claim to sanction pensionary benefits with effect from 15.8.1995. For filing action taken report adjourned to 14.09.09. 12. Aggrieved by Exhibit P23 order, the Medical Officer, Community Centre, Kanyakulangara, 3rd petitioner herein, has filed a Review Petition before the Honourable Lok Ayukta, which is numbered as I.A.No.642/2009. The complainant filed an objection against the action taken report with a counter claim to sanction pensionary benefits with effect from 15.8.1995. The complainant also filed an objection to the Review Petition on 26.11.2009 along with a petition for correcting the order dated 15.7.2009 by incorporating the percentage of interest which the respondent/complainant is entitled to. 13. Prayer made in I.A. No.555/2009 is as follows: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Lok Ayukta may be pleased to pass an order by correcting the judgment dated 15.7.2009 by incorporating the percentage of interest which the petitioner/complainant is entitled to get.” 14. Prayer made in I.A. No.642/2009, seeking to review the order passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta dated 15.7.09 is extracted hereunder: “It is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the review petition and modify the order of the Hon'ble Upa Lok Ayukta dated 15.7.09 for the ends of justice and the respondents may be exhonourated from the payment of interest on the retirement benefit.” 15. Both the I.A. Nos.555 and 642 of 2009 were heard together and the Lok Ayukta dismissed I.A. No.642/09 filed by the Medical Officer, Community Centre, Kanyakulangara, 3rd petitioner herein, and allowed I.A. No.555/09, filed by the complainant, declaring that the complainant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% per annum, as per Exhibit P27 order dated 22.03.2010, which is reproduced: “I.A.NO.555/2009 IN COMPLAINT NO.2122/2005 Petitioner(Complainant) J. Remadevi S.S. Bhavan, Karoor, Pothencode Trivandrum-695 584. By Advocate G.S.Regunath Respondents 1. Director, Health Services, Thiruvananthapuram 2. District Medical Officer Thiruvananthapuram 3. Medical Officer, Community Centre, Kanyakulangara, Trivandrum By Government Pleader Sri.K.S.Jain I.A.NO.642/2009 IN COMPLAINT NO.2122/2005 Review Petitioner/2nd Respondent District Medical Officer, Trivandrum Counter Petitioners/Complainant and others 1. J.Remadevi S.S. Bhavan, Karoor, Pothencode, Trivandrum-695 584. 2. Director of Health Services, Trivandrum. 3. Medical Officer, Community Centre, Kanyakulangara, Trivandrum. COMMON ORDER IA No.555/09 was filed by the complainant praying that the order made by this forum on 15.07.09 may be corrected mentioning the percentage of interest which the petitioner is entitled to get. J.Remadevi S.S. Bhavan, Karoor, Pothencode, Trivandrum-695 584. 2. Director of Health Services, Trivandrum. 3. Medical Officer, Community Centre, Kanyakulangara, Trivandrum. COMMON ORDER IA No.555/09 was filed by the complainant praying that the order made by this forum on 15.07.09 may be corrected mentioning the percentage of interest which the petitioner is entitled to get. IA No.642/09 is filed by the second respondent in the complaint for reviewing the above order. According to the petitioner in the above IA the direction in the order dated 15.07.09 for payment of interest has to be vacated. 2. Complaint was filed alleging that complainant gave an application for voluntary retirement with effect from 15.08.1995 Contention raised by the respondents in the complaint was that no application for voluntary retirement was given by the complainant. On pointing out certain statements in the letter sent by the Accountant General on 17.02.06 to the Director of Health Services it was found that the complainant had given an application for voluntary retirement with effect from 15.08.1995. This forum found that there was delay in giving the pensionary benefits to the complainant and directed that respondents are liable to pay interest to the complainant on the retirement benefits payable to her. In the order the rate of interest is not mentioned and according to the complainant rate of interest has to be specified by this forum. 3. In the review petition filed by the second respondent the prayer is that the finding of this forum that the complainant gave application for voluntary retirement with effect from 15.08.1995 has to be reviewed. Such a finding was arrived at by this forum on the basis of the materials available on records. Letter dated 17.02.06 sent by the Accountant General to the Director of Health Services, Thiruvananthapuram mentions about an application filed by the complainant for voluntary retirement with effect from 15.08.1995. Accountant General says that the Medical Officer in Charge of the Community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara has stated that complainant had applied for voluntary retirement with effect from 15.08.1995. That letter also says that the order sanctioning voluntary retirement was not received along with the closure application and that the same had been called for vide letter No.DP5/CL230 dated 17.01.2005. In reply to that letter Medical Officer in charge informed the Accountant General that the order sanctioning voluntary retirement and the passbook were not available in the office records. That letter also says that the order sanctioning voluntary retirement was not received along with the closure application and that the same had been called for vide letter No.DP5/CL230 dated 17.01.2005. In reply to that letter Medical Officer in charge informed the Accountant General that the order sanctioning voluntary retirement and the passbook were not available in the office records. That shows that the medical officer has no case that complainant did not file an application for voluntary retirement with effect from 15.08.1995. As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant the finding that the complainant gave application for voluntary retirement with affect from 15.08.1995 is on the basis of materials available on records and that finding cannot be said to be a error apparent on the face of the record which could be corrected by way of review of the order. There is no reason for granting the review as prayed for by the second respondent. IA No.642/09 is liable to be dismissed. Since the rate of interest is not mentioned in the order after finding that the complainant is entitled to get interest it is necessary that rate of interest has to be mentioned by this forum. 4. In the result, IA NO.642/09 is dismissed and IA No.555/09 allowed on finding that the complainant is entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum.” 16. Mr. V. Tek Chand, learned Senior Government Pleader for the petitioners, contended that the above finding of the Lok Ayukta is without any material, not based on any records or documents. Lok Ayukta lost sight of the ineluctable aspect that pension papers were submitted only on 24.12.2008. The above application was forwarded to the Accountant General for sanction on 16.01.2009 and that the same was sanctioned by the Accountant General on 09.07.2009. Had the respondent submitted an application for Voluntary Retirement Service, there is no question of submitting any proposal for sanctioning pensionary benefits taking into account the date of her actual retirement, i.e. 30.06.2000. The Accountant General sanctioned pension and pensionary benefits based on the formal proposal submitted by her taking into account her actual date of retirement, that is on 30.06.2000. The Accountant General sanctioned pension and pensionary benefits based on the formal proposal submitted by her taking into account her actual date of retirement, that is on 30.06.2000. Therefore, Lok Ayukta ought to have found that without proper application, no pension and pensionary benefits can be sanctioned to an employee and therefore, sanctioning of pension and pensionary benefits was in accordance with the rules and it follows that the complainant/respondent is not entitled for any interest. Therefore, the findings of Lok Ayukta in Exhibits P23 & P27 are legally unsustainable, and liable to be interfered with. 17. Mr. G. S. Reghunath, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that the application for voluntary retirement was submitted by the respondent/complainant on 15.08.1995, along with all the service records. The Medical Officer in Charge on 29.10.2005 has stated that the service book of the respondent/complainant, orders sanctioning voluntary retirement and the GPP pass books are lost from the office of Community Health Centre. According to learned counsel for the respondent, review petition has been filed to delay the payment and deny the compensation, due to the respondent. 18. Perusal of the letter, produced before us, shows that it is unsigned and that there is no proof of acknowledgment by the petitioners. Therefore, files were directed to be produced to ascertain as to whether, the complainant/respondent had submitted such an application to the petitioners. Scrutiny of the files does not disclose that the complainant/respondent had submitted any application to the petitioners, as contended before the Lok Ayukta. 19. Lok Ayukta has proceeded on the premise that the Medical Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, in his report submitted to the Accountant General, has referred to the submission of an application to the petitioners and on that basis, Lok Ayukta has passed orders. 20. Let us consider, as to what the Medical Officer (in-charge), Community Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, has considered. 21. In Form No. E (Rule 43), submitted by the respondent for closure of Provident Fund, the relevant columns are reproduced. “Form E [See Rule 43] *Application for Closure of General Provident Fund (Kerala) Account Name (in full) of subscriber and account number (as indicated in the latest annual account statement received from Account Officer) (a) Designation (Specify whether Gazetted or Non-Gazetted) (i) Date of birth (ii) Whether the applicant is a surrendered school teacher. (iii) Whether applicant had opted to subscribe to the Fund after his/her 55th year. (iii) Whether applicant had opted to subscribe to the Fund after his/her 55th year. J. REMADEVI MDL. 24502 Jr. PH Nurse (Non-Gazetted) to 21.06.1945 Office in which he/she is working/worked last Community Health Centre, Kayamkulam (a) Date of proceeding on leave preparatory to retirement (b) Date of quitting service by retirement/superannuation (c) Statement of option as required in rule 30 (c) vide note 4 below If he/she has already quitted service, otherwise, specify whether he/she quitted service by discharge, dismissal, resignation or death. Applied for Voluntary Retirement on 15/8/1995. Yes Applied for Voluntary retirement ? Xxxx DECLARATION I, J. REMADEVI........., do hereby declare that the particulars mentioned are true. It further declare that I do not/do accept the balance standing to my credit in the G.P.F. Account No.MDL24592 communicated to me by the Account Officer in his annual account for the financial year ended on the 31st March, 1996-97...............(here enter the financial immediately preceding the date of his quitting service.) Countersigned. J. Remadevi Sd/- Pothencode 27-5-2004 27.5.2004 Dated signature of the subscriber Nominee(s) other claimant(s) with full home address” 22. Vide Exhibit-P7 dated 14.11.2005, the Medical Officer in charge, Community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara, has sent a reply to the Accountant General (A&E), Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, stating that her application for voluntary retirement has not been accepted. Thereafter, the Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Account General (A&E), Thiruvananthapuram, in Exhibit-P6 letter dated 11.11.2005, has requested the Medical Officer in Charge of Community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara, to specify the order in the voluntary retirement application. Exhibit-P6 letter reads thus: “No.PF5/cl-230/ Date: 11/11/2005 The Medical Officer in Charge Community Health Centre Kanyakulangara. Sir Sub:-GPF Closure in r/o. J. Remadevi PH Nurse -Date of retirement-reg. Ref:-PF5/cl.230/dated 7-1-2005. Kindly refer to the letter cited. The subscriber has applied for voluntary retirement on 15-8-1995. Please specify whether voluntary retirement has been sanctioned to her. If not, the date of retirement may be intimated for closing her account. Yours faithfully Sd/- Sr. Accounts Officer” 23. It has to be considered whether the respondent had applied for voluntary retirement, and also the remarks of the Medical Officer in Charge, Community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara. The District Medical Officer of Health, Thiruvananthapuram, had raised a query as to whether the respondent/complainant had applied for voluntary retirement? Yours faithfully Sd/- Sr. Accounts Officer” 23. It has to be considered whether the respondent had applied for voluntary retirement, and also the remarks of the Medical Officer in Charge, Community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara. The District Medical Officer of Health, Thiruvananthapuram, had raised a query as to whether the respondent/complainant had applied for voluntary retirement? Thereafter on 29.12.2005, in Complaint No.2122/05, (Exhibit-P11), Lok Ayukta has passed the following order: “ORDER The respondents filed a statement dated 17-12-2005 to the effect that an amount of Rs.1,48,529/-is paid to the complainant, on 5-11-2005 as G.P.F. closure amount. The complainant has filed a statement to the effect that she is entitled to a total amount of Rs. 1,86,592/-and therefore a balance amount of Rs.38,063/-is due to her from the respondents. The respondents are directed to pay the entire balance amount legally due to the complainant within one month from this date and to file a further action taken report. Post on 20-2-2006. JUSTICE K.A. MOHAMMED SHAFI, UPA LOK AYUKTA.” 24. Apart from the unsigned document, Exhibit-P1, produced before the Lok Ayukta, the respondent/complainant has not submitted any proof evidencing that she had given any application for voluntary retirement from 15.08.1995, and orders passed by the Competent Authority on such application. 25. At this juncture, let us consider Exhibit-P13 communication dated 17.02.2006, as to what the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Office of the Accountant General (A&E) Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, addressed to the Director, Directorate of Health Services, Thiruvananthapuram, petitioner No.1. Exhibit-P13 reads thus: “No.PF5/Comp/.............../05.06/18 Date: 17.2.2006. The Director, Directorate of Health Services, Thiruvananthapuram. Sir, Sub:-GPF Closure in respect of Smt. J. Remadevi, Jr. PH Nurse Mdl.24592, Community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara -Reg. Ref:-No.AD6-43411/05/DHS dt. 4.2.06. Please refer to the letter cited. The closure application in respect of Smt. J. Remadevi, Jr. PH Nurse, Community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara was received in this office on 30.11.2004. In this application, the Medical Officer in Charge of Community Health Centre, Kanyakulangara had stated that she had applied for voluntary retirement with effect from 15.8.95. But the order sanctioning voluntary retirement has not been received along with the application and the same has been called for vide this office Letter No.PF5/Cl-230 dt. 17.1.05. The Medical Officer in Charge in his letter No.E/613/04 CHCK dt. But the order sanctioning voluntary retirement has not been received along with the application and the same has been called for vide this office Letter No.PF5/Cl-230 dt. 17.1.05. The Medical Officer in Charge in his letter No.E/613/04 CHCK dt. 29.10.05 informed that the order of sanctioning voluntary retirement and the pass book were not seen available in this office records and also intimated that the actual date of retirement of the subscriber was 30.6.2000 A.N. and requested this office to close the GPF a/c on the basis of the retirement date. Her GPF a/c has been closed allowing interest upto 30.6.2001 and authorised Rs.148529/-to the subscriber based on the retirement dated 30.6.2000 vide Slip No.46685 dt. 23.11.05. As per sub Rule 4(ii) under Rule 5 of the GPF(K) Rules, if an application for closure is received in this officer as a period of one year of retirement, interest shall be admissible only upto a period of one year. Hence the difference in the amount claimed by the subscriber. The GPF a/c has been settled finally and no balance is due to her as per this office records. Yours faithfully Sd/- Sr. Accounts Officer.” 26. From Exhibit-P13 letter dated 17.02.2006, it is evident that the Senior Accounts Officer, Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Office of the Accountant General (A&E) Kerala, has only recorded the version of the Medical Officer in Charge of the Community Health Centre. Thereafter, on 13.09.2006, Exhibit-P15, the Lok Ayukta has closed the complaint stating that the respondent has not produced any evidence. 27. After the disposal of Complaint No.2122/05, respondent has filed an interlocutory application on 23.11.2006, No.622/06, before the Lok Ayukta, wherein, the petitioners were directed to file a statement. 28. After considering the counter affidavit/statement, in I.A. No.622/06 in Complaint No.2122/05, Lok Ayukta has passed an order on 25.07.2007 (Exhibit-P21), reviewing its earlier decision rendered on 13.09.2006 (ExhibitP15). Exhibit-P21 order dated 25.07.2007 is extracted hereunder: “ORDER Counter is filed by the first respondent. Heard, I find there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record in closing the complaint without considering the contentions of the complainant with regard to her offer for voluntary retirement. Therefore the order dated 13.9.2006 closing the complaint is reviewed and the complaint is restored to file. Post the complaint for filing detailed written statement by respondents post on 3.7.2007. JUSTICE K.A. MOHAMED SHAFI, UPA LOK AYUKTA” 29. Therefore the order dated 13.9.2006 closing the complaint is reviewed and the complaint is restored to file. Post the complaint for filing detailed written statement by respondents post on 3.7.2007. JUSTICE K.A. MOHAMED SHAFI, UPA LOK AYUKTA” 29. Thereafter, the Lok Ayukta, vide Exhibit-P23 dated 15.07.2009, passed another order in Complaint No.2122/05, directing payment of interest, which is extracted above. 30. Being aggrieved, petitioners have filed a review petition (ExhibitP24), in October, 2009, to review Exhibit-P23 order dated 15.07.2009. Considering the same, Lok Ayukta passed Exhibit-P27 order dated 22.03.2010, extracted above. 31. By order in Exhibit-P15 dated 13.09.2006, the complaint has been closed, recording that the respondent/complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that she had filed any application for closure of GPF. At the risk of repetition, relevant portion of the said order is reproduced. “...Though the complainant has contended that she has preferred G.P.F. Closure application in the year 1995 itself along with her application for voluntary retirement, she has not produced any evidence to prove that she has filed such an application. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant has filed G.P.F. Closure application before 27.05.2004. In view of the fact that the respondent has paid the G.P.F. Amount along with interest from 30.6.2000, the actual date of retirement up to 30.6.2001, the complainant is not entitled to any further interest for the P.F. Amount. Accordingly this complaint is closed.” 32. Now, let us consider the relevant provisions. The Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 is an Act to make provision for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for making enquiries into any action (including any omission and commission in connection with or arising out of such action) relatable to matters specified in List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India taken by or on behalf of the Government of Kerala or certain public authorities in the State of Kerala in certain cases and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto. Section 7 of the said Act deals with matters which may be investigated by the Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok Ayuktas, and it reads thus: “7. Section 7 of the said Act deals with matters which may be investigated by the Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok Ayuktas, and it reads thus: “7. Matters which may be investigated by the Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok Ayuktas.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Lok Ayukta and one of the Upa-Lok Ayuktas, as may be nominated by the Lok Ayukta for the purpose, may investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of- (i) the Chief Minister; or (ii) a Minister; or (iii) a Member of the State Legislature; or (iv) a Secretary; or (v) an office bearer of a political party at the State Level; or (vi) an officer referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (d) of Section 2, in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action and where there is difference of opinion between the Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok Ayukta as so nominated, the action shall be investigated by the Lok Ayukta and both the Upa-Lok Ayuktas together and the decision of the majority therein shall prevail. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, an Upa-Lok Ayukta may investigate any action which is taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, any public servant not being the Chief Minister or a Minister or a Member of the State Legislature or a Secretary or an office bearer of a political party at State Level or an officer referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (d) of section 2, in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such actions or such action can be or could have been in the opinion of the Upa-Lok-Ayukta, the subject of a grievance or an allegation. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta may investigate any action taken by or with the general or specific approval of a public servant, if it is referred to him by the Government. (4) The Lok Ayukta may, by general or special order, assign to each of the Upa-Lok Ayuktas the matters which may be investigated by them under this Act. (4) The Lok Ayukta may, by general or special order, assign to each of the Upa-Lok Ayuktas the matters which may be investigated by them under this Act. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) to (4), when an Upa-Lok Ayukta is unable to discharge his functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause, his functions may be discharged by the other Upa-Lok Ayukta, and in the absence of both, by the Lok Ayukta. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, no investigation made by an Upa-Lok Ayukta under this Act and no action taken or things done by him in respect of such investigation shall be open to question on the ground only that such investigation relates to a matter which is not assigned to him by such order. (7) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the term 'Lok Ayukta' wherever it is used in this Act, in relation to any of the persons referred to in sub-section (1), shall mean the Lok Ayukta and, as the case may be, one or both of the Upa-Lok Ayuktas as provided in that sub-section.” 33. Section 8 of the Act deals with matters not subject to investigation and the same reads thus: “8. Matters not subject to investigation.-(1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act, in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action, if such action relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule. Matters not subject to investigation.-(1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act, in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action, if such action relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule. (2) The Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall not investigate,- (a) any action in respect of which a formal and public inquiry has been ordered with the prior concurrence of the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be; (b) any action in respect of a matter which has been referred to inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central Act 60 of 1952); (c) any complaint involving an allegation made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place: Provided that a complaint referred to in clause(c) may be entertained by the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be, after the expiry of the period referred to in the said clause, if the complainant satisfies that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the period specified in that clause. (3) In the case of any complaint involving a grievance, nothing in this Act shall be construed as empowering the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta to question any administrative action involving the exercise of a discretion, except where he is satisfied that the elements involved in the exercise of the discretion are absent to such an extent that the discretion can prima-facie be regarded as having been improperly exercised.” 34. Section 9 of the Act deals with the provisions relating to complaints and investigations and it reads thus: “9. Provisions relating to complaints and investigations.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person may make a complaint under this Act to the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta. (2) Every complaint shall be made in such form and in such manner, as may be prescribed, and shall be supported by an affidavit. Provisions relating to complaints and investigations.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person may make a complaint under this Act to the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta. (2) Every complaint shall be made in such form and in such manner, as may be prescribed, and shall be supported by an affidavit. (3) Where the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta proposes, after making such preliminary inquiry as he deems fit, to conduct any investigation under this Act, he-(a) shall forward a copy of the complaint to the public servant and the competent authority concerned; (b) shall afford to such public servant, an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint; (c) may make such orders as to the safe custody of documents relevant to the investigation, as he deems fit. (4) Save as aforesaid, the procedure for conducting any such investigation shall be such, and may be held, either in public or in camera, as the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case. (5) The Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta may, in his discretion, refuse to investigate or discontinue investigation of, any complaint involving a grievance or an allegation, if in his opinion- (a) the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith; (b) there are no sufficient grounds for investigating or, as the case may be, for continuing the investigation; or (c) other remedies are available to the complainant and in the circumstances of the case it would be more proper for the complainant to avail of such remedies. (6) In any case where the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta decides not to entertain a complaint or to discontinue any investigation in respect of a complaint he shall record his reasons therefore and communicate the same to the complainant and the public servant concerned. (7) The conduct of an investigation under this Act against a public servant in respect of any action shall not affect such action or any power or duty of any other public servant to take further action with respect to any matter subject to investigation. (7) The conduct of an investigation under this Act against a public servant in respect of any action shall not affect such action or any power or duty of any other public servant to take further action with respect to any matter subject to investigation. (8) In every proceeding before the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta under this Act, the State shall be made a party thereto and the Government shall appoint a Special Attorney and one or more senior Government Pleaders to represent the Government before the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be, on the terms and conditions prescribed: Provided that it shall not be necessary that State should be made a party in cases where Government interests are not involved.” 35. Section 11 of the Act deals with evidence and the same reads thus: “11. Evidence.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, for the purpose of any investigation (including the preliminary inquiry, if any, before such investigation) under this Act, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta may require any public servant or any other person who, in his opinion, is able to furnish information or produce documents relevant to the investigation to furnish any such information or produce any such document. (2) For the purpose of any such investigation (including the preliminary inquiry) the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall have all the powers of a Civil Court, while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; (f) such other matters as may be prescribed. (3) Any proceeding before the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45 of 1860). (3) Any proceeding before the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45 of 1860). (4) No person shall be required or authorised by virtue of this Act to furnish any such information or answer any such question or produce so much of any document,- (a) as might prejudice the affairs of the State or the security or defence or international relations of India (including India's relation with the Government of any other country or with any international organisation); (b) as might involve the disclosure of proceedings of the Cabinet of the Government of Kerala or any Committee of that Cabinet and for the purpose of this sub-section, a certificate issued by the Chief Secretary certifying that any information, answer or portion of a document is of the nature specified in clause (a) or clause (b) shall be binding and conclusive. (5) For the purpose of investigation under this Act, no person shall be compelled to give any evidence or produce any document which he could not be compelled to give or produce in proceedings before a court.” 36. Section 12 of the Act deals with reports of Lok Ayukta and the same reads thus: “12. Reports of Lok Ayukta etc.-(1) If, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving grievance has been made, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall, by a report in writing, recommend to the competent authority concerned that such injustice or hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time, as may be specified in the report and also intimate the complainant about its having made the report. (2) The competent authority to whom a report is sent under sub-section (1) shall, within one month of the expiry of the period specified in the report, intimate or cause to be intimated, as the case may be, to the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta the action taken on the report. (2) The competent authority to whom a report is sent under sub-section (1) shall, within one month of the expiry of the period specified in the report, intimate or cause to be intimated, as the case may be, to the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta the action taken on the report. (3) If, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving an allegation has been made, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta is satisfied that such allegation is substantiated, either wholly or partly, he shall, by report in writing, communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority and also intimate the complainant about its having made the report. (4) The competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3) and, within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be, the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. (5) If the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his recommendations or findings referred to in sub-sections (1) and (3), he shall close the case, under intimation to the complainant, the public servant and the competent authority concerned; but where he is not so satisfied and if he considers that the case so deserves, he may make a special report upon the case to the Governor and also inform the competent authority concerned and the complainant. (6) The Lok Ayukta shall present annually a consolidated report on the performance of his functions as well as the functions of the Upa-Lok Ayuktas, to the Governor. (7) On receipt of the special report under sub-section (5) or the annual report under subsection (6), the Governor shall cause a copy thereof, together with an explanatory memorandum, to be laid before the Legislative Assembly. (8) The Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta may, at his discretion, make available, from time to time, the substance of cases closed or otherwise disposed of by him which may appear to him to be of general, public, academic or professional interest, in such manner and to such persons, as he may deem appropriate.” 37. (8) The Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta may, at his discretion, make available, from time to time, the substance of cases closed or otherwise disposed of by him which may appear to him to be of general, public, academic or professional interest, in such manner and to such persons, as he may deem appropriate.” 37. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Ordinance, 1998 (Ordinance 16 of 1998), read with sub-section (2) of Section 9 thereof, Government of Kerala made the Kerala Lok Ayukta (Form and Manner of Complaint) Rules, 1999, to prescribe the form in which complaints may be made under sub-section (1) of Section 9, of the said Ordinance. 38. Perusal of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 and the rules framed thereunder, does not indicate that Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayuktas, have been conferred with a power of reviewing its earlier decisions, either at the instances of a party to a complaint or suo motu. Unless and until, specific power to review is conferred by the statute on the Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayuktas, we are of the view that such a power cannot be assumed and exercised. (i) In Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [ (1971) 3 SCC 844 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “4. It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to our notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order. The question whether the Government's order is correct or valid in law does not arise for consideration in these proceedings so long as that order is not set aside or declared void by a competent authority. Hence the same cannot be ignored The Subordinate Tribunals have to carry out that order....................” (ii) In Ramdayal Missir & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. [ AIR 1958 Pat. Hence the same cannot be ignored The Subordinate Tribunals have to carry out that order....................” (ii) In Ramdayal Missir & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. [ AIR 1958 Pat. 4 ], a Hon'ble Division Bench of the Patna High Court observed that the power of review is a statutory power and, in absence of any such power, having been conferred in writing in the statute, no power would vest, within any authority, to exercise the power of review. In the said case, the Hon'ble Division Bench held as under:- "On an examination of the language of these provisions it is manifest that the Settlement Officer has not been expressly granted the power of review of an order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer under Section 103A of the Bihar Tenancy Act. It is true that Section 108A provides for correction by the Revenue Officers of mistakes in the records-of-rights, but the Section applies only to a case where an application is made after the final publication of the records-of-rights. It is also obvious that the Section provides for the correction of the records-of-rights only when there is a bona fide mistake." (iii) In Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. [ (1987) 4 SCC 525 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: “11. It is now well established that a quasi judicial authority cannot review its own order, unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction.....................” (emphasis supplied) (iv) In Lily Thomas v. Union of India, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "52. The dictionary meaning of the word "review" is the act of looking, offer, something again with a view to correction or improvement. It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute. This Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. v. Pradyunmansinghji Arjunsinghji [AIR (1970) SC 1273], held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error........................” (v) In Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [ (2005) 13 SCC 777 ], at para 19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "Applying these principles it is apparent that where a Court or quasi Judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate on merit proceeds to do so, its judgment or order can be reviewed on merit only if the Court or the quasi Judicial authority is vested with the power of review by express provision or by necessary implication." (vi) In Rekha Mukherjee v. Ashis Kumar Das and Ors. [ (2005) 3 SCC 427 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- “33. The right of review is a statutory right. Such right can be invoked if the conditions therefore are fulfilled. So is a right of appeal. A right of review and right to appeal stand on different footings although some grounds may be overlapping..........” (emphasis supplied) (vii) On the aspect of exercise of the power of review, in the absence of conferment by the Legislature, let us consider a few decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Management of Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 777 , wherein at paragraphs 17 to 20, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “17. The question still remains whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to recall its earlier "Award dated June 12, 1987. The High Court was of the view that in the absence of an express provision in the Act conferring upon the Tribunal the power of review the Tribunal could not review its earlier Award. The High Court has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Dr. The High Court was of the view that in the absence of an express provision in the Act conferring upon the Tribunal the power of review the Tribunal could not review its earlier Award. The High Court has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Dr. (Smt.)Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Maha Vidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. [1987 (32) ELT8 (SC)] and Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsingji ( AIR 1970 SC 1273 ) wherein this Court has clearly held that the power of review is not an inherent power and must be conferred by law either expressly or by necessary implication. The appellant sought to get over this legal hurdle by relying upon the judgment of this Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. (supra). In that case the Tribunal made an ex-parte Award. Respondents applied for setting aside the ex-parte Award on the ground that they were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the reference was called on for hearing. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte Award on being satisfied that there was sufficient cause within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and accordingly set aside the ex-parte Award. That order was upheld by the High Court and thereafter in appeal by this Court. 18. It was, therefore, submitted before us relying upon Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. (supra) that even in the absence of an express power of review, the Tribunal had the power to review its order if some illegality was pointed out. The submission must be rejected as misconceived. The submission does not take notice of the difference between a procedural review and a review on merits. This Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. (supra) clearly highlighted this distinction when it observed :- "Furthermore, different considerations arise on review. The expression 'review' is used in the two distinct senses, namely (1) a procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a mus-apprehension by it, and (2) a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. It is in the latter sense that the court in Patel Narshi Thakershi case held that no review lies on merits unless a statute specifically provides for it. Obviously when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex debit a justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process, and such power inheres in every court or Tribunal". 19. Applying these principles it is apparent that where a Court or quasi judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate on merit proceeds to do so, its judgment or order can be reviewed on merit only if the Court or the quasi judicial authority is vested with power of review by express provision or by necessary implication. The procedural review belongs to a different category. In such a review, the Court or quasi judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate proceeds to do so, but in doing so commits a procedural illegality which goes to the root of the matter and invalidates the proceeding itself, and consequently the order passed therein. Cases where a decision is rendered by the Court or quasi judicial authority without notice to the opposite party or under a mistaken impression that the notice had been served upon the opposite party, or where a matter is taken up for hearing and decision on a date other than the date fixed for its hearing, are some illustrative cases in which the power of procedural review may be invoked. In such a case the party seeking review or recall of the order does not have to substantiate the ground that the order passed suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground which may justify a review. He has to establish that the procedure followed by the Court or the quasi judicial authority suffered from such illegality that it vitiated the proceeding and invalidated the order made therein, inasmuch the opposite party concerned was not heard for no fault of his, or that the matter was heard and decided on a date other than the one fixed for hearing of the matter which he could not attend for no fault of his. In such cases, therefore, the matter has to be re-heard in accordance with law without going into the merit of the order passed. In such cases, therefore, the matter has to be re-heard in accordance with law without going into the merit of the order passed. The order passed is liable to be recalled and reviewed not because it is found to be erroneous, but because it was passed in a proceeding which was itself vitiated by an error of procedure or mistake which went to the root of the matter and invalidated the entire proceeding. In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. (supra), it was held that once it is established that the respondents were prevented from appearing at the hearing due to sufficient cause, it followed that the matter must be re-heard and decided again. 20. The facts of the instant case are quite different. The recall of the Award of the Tribunal was sought not on the ground that in passing the Award the Tribunal had committed any procedural illegality or mistake of the nature which vitiated the proceeding itself and consequently the Award, but on the ground that some mattes which ought to have been considered by the Tribunal were not duly considered. Apparently the recall or review sought was not a procedural review, but a review on merits. Such a review was not permissible in the absence of a provision in the Act conferring the power of review on the Tribunal either expressly or by necessary implication.” (viii) In Kalabharti Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and others, [ (2010) 9 SCC 437 ], the power of review in the absence of statutory provisions was considered by the Hon'ble and, at paragraph Nos. 12, 13 and 14, held as under: “12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of Judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed is ultra-vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (vide: Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and another, AIR 1965 SC 1457 and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh and others, AIR 1966 SC 641 ). 13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Shri Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273 ; Maj. Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan and others, AIR 1978 SC 1814 ; Dr. (vide: Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and another, AIR 1965 SC 1457 and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh and others, AIR 1966 SC 641 ). 13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Shri Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273 ; Maj. Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan and others, AIR 1978 SC 1814 ; Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidhyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and others, AIR 1987 SC 2186 ; State of Orissa and others v. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Cuttack and others, (1998) 7 SCC 162 and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain and others. (2008) 2 SCC 705 , this Court held that the pouter to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in absence of any statutory provision for the same is nullity being without jurisdiction. 14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible.” (ix) In Haryana State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Mawasi, [ (2012) 7 SCC 200 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under: "26. At this stage it will be apposite to observe that the power of review is a creature of the statute and no court or quasi- judicial body or administrative authority can review its judgment or order or decision unless it is legally empowered to do so...........................” (emphasis supplied) (x) In D. Prabhakara Panicker v. Kerala Lok Ayukta, Thiruvananthapuram, and Others [(2016) SCC Online Kerala 40164], at paragraph 7, a learned single Judge of this Court, Hon'ble Justice Mr. Shaji P. Chaly, held thus: “7. The other ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, no reasons are assigned by the Lok Ayukta as per Ext. P6 order passed in review. In my considered opinion, the above are the grounds raised by the petitioner before the Lok Ayukta which are not legally sustainable. Therefore, it cannot be said that Ext. The other ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, no reasons are assigned by the Lok Ayukta as per Ext. P6 order passed in review. In my considered opinion, the above are the grounds raised by the petitioner before the Lok Ayukta which are not legally sustainable. Therefore, it cannot be said that Ext. P6 order passed without assigning any reason is unsustainable, arbitrary or illegal. Moreover, the review petition was filed by the petitioner on the basis of subsection (6) of Sec.9, which according to me, is not a clear provision available to the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta to entertain a review petition. Sub-section (6) deals with the entertainment of complaints or to discontinue any investigation. Viewed in that manner also, petitioner is not entitled to succeed in this writ petition on the basis of arbitrariness or illegality on the part of the 1st respondent.” 39. Application No.555/2009 filed by the complainant, after the disposal of the Complaint No.2215/05 by order dated 15.7.2009 Exhibit-P23, and similar application No.642/2009 filed by the 2nd respondent herein, and the orders passed thereon are beyond the purview of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999. 40. Thus, giving due consideration to the material on record, and the decisions considered, we are of the view that the Lok Ayukta, by assuming the power of review, not specifically conferred with the powers to review, under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, has jurisdictionally erred in reviewing its earlier decision on I.A. No.622/06 in Complaint No.2122/05 dated 25.05.2007 (Exhibit P21), and thus, has acted beyond the purview of the Act, 1999. 41. There is absolutely no credible evidence in the files, substantiating the contention of the respondent/complainant that she had submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 15.08.1995; Lok Ayukta ought not to have acted upon an unsigned letter produced before the Lok Ayukta, during the course of hearing and granted relief to the respondent. In the light of the above, this writ petition is allowed. Exhibit-P23 dated 15.07.2009 in Complaint No.2122/2005 and Exhibit P27 dated 22.03.2010 in I.A. Nos.555 and 642 of 2009 in Complaint No.2122/2005, insofar as it directs the payment of interest at the rate of @ 9% per annum, are quashed. It is declared that the respondent/complainant is not entitled to get interest from 24.12.2008. Accordingly, ordered.