A.J. Desai, C.J

1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram has challenged the order dated 20.04.2015 passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta, entertaining the complaint filed by the 1st respondent with regard to the delayed payment of his pensionary benefits and directing the writ petitioner to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 10.05.2013 till the date of actual payment of gratuity to the original complainant.

2. Today when the matter is taken up for final hearing, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, after taking us through the impugned order, would submit that the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta have passed the order beyond the jurisdiction vested with them. He would submit that as per section 12 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short), the powers vested with the Lok Ayukta is to communicate the report prepared after investigation to the concerned authority for appropriate action. Whereas, in the present case, by the impugned order, the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta have specifically ordered the writ petitioner to pay interest at the rate of 10%. He would submit that it is beyond the scope of jurisdiction and a similar issue has been considered by a Division Bench of this court in Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and Others, reported in 2017 (2) KLT 1127. He would submit that the issue laid down by the Division Bench of this court is with regard to the powers of the Lok Ayukta under section 12 of the Act. He, therefore, would submit that the Lok Ayukta has exercised such powers which are not vested with them and, therefore, the order is required to be quashed.

3. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing for the original complainant/1st respondent has supported the order impugned in the present petition. He would submit that the payments have been made by the writ petitioner only after the impugned orders have been passed and, therefore, the complainant is entitled to interest as directed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be dismissed.

4. We have heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. We have also considered the directions issued by the impugned order.

5. In paragraph 18 of the impugned order, it has been directed that the original complainant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 10.05.2013 till the date of actual payment of gratuity. In our considered opinion, by issuing such directions, the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta have exercised jurisdiction not vested with them.

6. As per sub-section (3) of section 12 of the Act, if, after made the report.

7. As per sub-section (5) of section 12 of the Act, if the Lok competent authority concerned and the complainant.

8. We are also in complete agreement with the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Sudha Devi K. (supra). In paragraph 9 of the said judgment, it has been held that the Lok Ayukta can make recommendations, but no positive direction can be issued by the Lok Ayukta.

9. Hence, we allow the writ petition. The order impugned is hereby quashed and set aside. We hereby remit the case to Lok Ayukta for passing further orders in consonance with the provisions of section 12 of the Act and the issue laid down by this court in the case of Sudha Devi K. (supra). It is expected that the Lok Ayukta will take an appropriate decision at the earliest.