S. Muralee Krishna, J.

1. This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.857 of 2019, challenging the judgment dated 14.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. W.P.(C)No.857 of 2019 was one filed by the appellant- writ petitioner who retired from service on 31.03.2011 while working as an Associate Professor in the Department of Physics, at the Christian College, Kattakada, a college affiliated with the University of Kerala, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

                  “i) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P6 letterNo.N3/44467/2011/Collegiate Education Department dated 12.02.2018 of the Collegiate Education Director, the 2nd respondent and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;

                  ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to disburse the Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (D.C.R.G.) amount together with interest, due to the petitioner forthwith;

                  iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 2nd respondent to issue the Non-Liability Certificate in respect of the petitioner forthwith; so as to enable the 4th respondent to disburse the D.C.R.G. amount to the petitioner”.

3. In the writ petition, the 2nd respondent, Director of Collegiate Education, filed a counter affidavit dated 22.02.2019 opposing the reliefs sought. The appellant - writ petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 26.06.2019 to that counter affidavit. The learned Single Judge considered W.P.(C)No.857 of 2019 along with a connected writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.12996 of 2019, and by the judgment dated 14.12.2021, quashed Ext.P6 communication dated 12.02.2018 of the 2nd respondent Director of Collegiate Education, on the ground that the demand made therein for refund of salary to the tune of Rs. 5,75,258/- together with interest at the rate of 12.5% is barred by limitation, in view of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the consequential reliefs sought for, that is, a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse the DCRG amount due to the appellant, together with interest; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to issue a non-liability certificate in respect of the appellant to disburse the DCRG due to her, were declined. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed the present writ appeal.

4. On 27.01.2021, when the writ appeal came up for admission, notice before admission was ordered to respondents 5 and 6 by speed post. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 4.

5. On 07.07.2022, when the writ appeal came up for consideration before the Division Bench, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that insofar as the learned Single Judge has chosen to set aside Ext.P6 communication, the respondents ought to have been directed to disburse the DCRG payable to the appellant with interest. The learned counsel contended that Ext.P6 communication is unsustainable in law since the appellant has no liability to reimburse the pay and allowances received during the period of deputation, in terms of the bond that has been executed. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Ajitha C.K. [2021 (2) KHC 1] in support of the said contention. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that since the appellant failed to successfully complete the Ph.D programme, she is liable to reimburse not only the pay and allowances received during the period of deputation but also the penalty stipulated in the bond. As regards the contention that the liability of the appellant in terms of the bond cannot now be recovered from the DCRG, the learned Government Pleader submitted that as clarified by this Court in the judgment dated 22.08.2019 in W.P.(C)No. 21588 of 2019, the fixation of liability in terms of the statutory provision is not necessary in a case of this nature, where there exists a bond.

6. In the order dated 07.07.2022 in this writ appeal, the Division Bench noticed that in the judgment dated 22.08.2019 in W.P.(C)No.21588 of 2019, this Court clarified that the fixation of liability is not necessary in a case where the pensioner has executed a bond for reimbursement of his/her liability. In the light of the said decision, the only question that survives for consideration is the question relating to the extent of liability of the original appellant under the bond. After extracting the relevant portion of Ext.P2 bond in paragraph 9 of the order dated 07.07.2022, the Division Bench noticed that the terms of the said bond originally interpreted by a learned Single Judge in Geetha S. v. State of Kerala [2014 SCC OnLine Ker. 15658] – the judgment in W.P.(C)No.884 of 2023 - is to the effect that bounden has no obligation to reimburse the pay and allowances received during the period of deputation in the event of unsuccessful completion of the Ph.D programme, if he/she served the institution for a period of three years after the deputation. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the correctness of the said decision was doubted by another learned Single Judge and the matter was referred to a Division Bench. The Division Bench answered that reference in Premasukumar v. Secretary, Higher Education Department [2019 (3) KLT 912], wherein it was held that a teacher who failed to complete the Ph.D programme successfully is liable not only to reimburse the pay and allowances received during the period of deputation but also liable to pay the penalty in terms of the bond. The view taken by the Division Bench in that decision is that serving the college without successful completion of Ph.D programme will not absolve the bounden from the liability under the bond.

7. In the order dated 07.07.2022, the Division Bench further noticed that in Premasukumar [2019 (3) KLT 912], reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology v. Suresh Chandra Verma [(2013) 10 SCC 411]. However, in a later decision, in Ajitha C.K. [2021 (2) KHC 1], another Division Bench interpreted the terms of the very same bond to the effect that the bounden has no obligation to reimburse the pay and allowances received during the period of deputation in the event of unsuccessful completion of the Ph.D programme, if he/she serves the institution for a period of three years after the deputation.

8. In the order dated 07.07.2022, the Division bench noticed that as evident from paragraphs 12 to 16 of the decision in Ajitha C.K. [2021 (2) KHC 1], the Division Bench arrived at its conclusion following the decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.884 of 2013, which was overruled in Premasukumar [2019 (3) KLT 912], after distinguishing the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Sant Longowal Institute [(2013) 10 SCC 411]. In the light of the apparent conflict of opinions formed by the Division Benches in Premasukumar [2019 (3) KLT 912] and Ajitha C.K. [2021 (2) KHC 1] as to the interpretation of the bond executed by the appellant, the Division Bench found that the question needs to be resolved by a Larger Bench. Accordingly, Registry was directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. After obtaining the orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the writ appeal was listed before the Full Bench headed by one among us (Anil K. Narendran, J).

9. After extensively referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sant Longowal Institute [(2013) 10 SCC 411], the judgments of different Division Benches of this Court in Premasukumar [2019 (3) KLT 912], Ajitha C.K. [2021 (2) KHC 1] and that of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Geetha S. [2014 SCC OnLine KER 15658], the Full Bench in Valsala Milka B. (Died) v. State of Kerala [2025 (3) KHC SN 5] held that the finding of the learned Single Judge in Geetha S. [2014 SCC OnLine KER 15658], is not good law. Similarly, the Full Bench concluded that the law laid down by the Division Bench in Ajitha C. K [2021 (2) KHC 1], which is contrary to the objective of the Faculty Improvement Programme, the terms of the bond, the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sant Longowal Institute [(2013) 10 SCC 411], and the law laid down by the Division Bench in Premasukumar [2019 (3) KLT 912] as not good law. Paragraphs 28 and 29 of that order read thus;

                  “28. In the instant case, the original appellant was awarded Teacher Fellowship for doing Ph.D, under IX Plan Faculty Development Programme of the UGC, vide letter dated 01.02.2001, which was followed by the letter dated 28.09.2002 granting extension of time. As already noticed hereinbefore at paragraph 11, the award of Teacher Fellowship as well as grant of extension of time was subject to the specific condition stipulated in those letters that the Teacher Fellow shall have to submit his/her Ph.D Thesis compulsorily in order to account for audit as well as for the purpose for which the grants are paid by the UGC, failing which the entire amount incurred to the Scheme will have to be borne by the Teacher Fellow.

                  29. The Division Bench of this Court in Premasukumar [2019 (3) KLT 912], after taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sant Longowal Institute [(2013) 10 SCC 411], rightly answered the reference by holding that in the event of a teacher awarded Fellowship for Ph.D course failing to complete the course and acquiring the degree within the Fellowship period, he/she would be liable to refund the salary and other benefits received during the fellowship period and that serving the college without successful completion of Ph.D course will not absolve the bounden from the liability under the bond. Therefore, the law laid down by the Division Bench in Ajitha C.K. [2021 (2) KHC 1], which is contrary to the objective of the Faculty Improvement Programme, the terms of the bond, the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sant Longowal Institute [(2013) 10 SCC 411] and the law laid down by the Division Bench in Premasukumar [2019 (3) KLT 912], is declared as not good law.”

10. Heard the learned counsel for the additional appellants, who are impleaded during the pendency of the ICR, since the original appellant expired, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the University Grants Commission.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in the order of the Full Bench in Valsala Milka B. [2025 (3) KHC SN 5], the limitation aspect was not considered, since the reference was only pertaining to the correctness of two contradictory Division Bench judgments as to the interpretation of the bond executed by the original appellant. Though the Full Bench answered the reference by upholding the judgment of the Division Bench in Premasukumar [2019 (3) KLT 912] as the correct law and in effect held that a teacher who failed to complete the course and acquiring the degree within the fellowship period, he/she would be liable to refund the salary and other benefits received during the fellowship period and that serving the college without successful completion of Ph.D course will not absolve bounden from the liability under the bond, in the instant case, the demand made by the respondents is after the period of limitation in accordance with the provisions under Rule 3 of Part III of Kerala Service Rules (‘KSR’ for short). In such circumstances, the appellants are entitled for the reliefs, which were not granted by the learned Single Judge.

12. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the original appellant had executed Ext.P2 bond dated 04.01.2002 by binding herself to pay the Government on demand the entire amount drawn by her by way of pay and allowances for the period of deputation to undergo Ph.D (Physics) course under the University of Kerala together a penalty of Rs.10,000/- with interest thereon. The said amount can be recovered by adopting revenue recovery proceedings. In view of the finding of the Full Bench in (W.A.) No.13 of 2025 - Valsala Milka B. [2025 (3) KHC SN 5], the original appellant cannot be absolved from the aforesaid liability.

13. The learned Standing Counsel for UGC would submit that, as per the finding of the Full Bench in the reference order, the amount drawn by the bounden by way of pay and allowances and also the amount stipulated as a penalty in Ext.P2 bond, can be recovered even without any prior notice or fixation by the Government.

14. We have carefully perused the materials on record and appreciated the arguments addressed at the Bar. The original appellant herein entered service as Junior Lecturer (Physics) under the 5th respondent College on 05.10.1979. Following her selection by the UGC to undergo Ph.D course under the Faculty Improvement Programme, the appellant, pursuant to Ext.P1 order dated 18.12.2001 of the 1st respondent, availed deputation for securing the same, after executing Ext.P2 bond dated 04.01.2002. But she failed to secure Ph.D, which, according to her, is due to reasons beyond her control, as she could not submit the Thesis on time. She rejoined in service and worked for seven more years. She demitted office after completing 32 years of service as Assistant Professor on 31.03.2011. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P6 letter dated 12.02.2018 informing the appellant to refund the salary received by her during the deputation period and stating that otherwise same will be recovered from her DCRG. According to the appellant, no notice prior to the issuance of Ext.P6 letter was issued to her, and she was not heard before fixing the quantum of liability. Moreover, she contends that the claim made by the 2nd respondent is beyond the period of limitation as envisaged under Rule 3 of Part III of KSR.

15. Though there were conflicting judgments of the different Division Bench of this Court regarding the liability of the bounden to reimburse the pay and allowances received during the period of deputation, in the event of unsuccessful completion of Ph.D programme if he/she served the institution for a period of three years after the deputation, by the order dated 10.04.2025 in ICR (W.A.)No.13 of 2025 - Valsala Milka B. [2025 (3) KHC SN 5], the position was clarified by the Full Bench that the bounden is liable to refund the salary and other benefits received during the fellowship period and that serving the college without successful completion of Ph.D course will not absolve the bounden from the liability under the bond. Then the only question remaining is whether a prior notice is required before fixing the liability in terms of the bond executed by the bounden. To answer the aforesaid point, it would be appropriate to extract Rule 3 as well as Notes 2 and 3 of Part III of KSR, which was relied on by the learned Single Judge also in the impugned judgment. The said provisions read thus;

                  “3. The Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re- employment after retirement

                  Note 1: xxx

                  Note 2: The word 'pension' used in this rule does not include death-cum-retirement gratuity. Liabilities fixed against an employee or pensioner can be recovered from the death- cum-retirement gratuity payable to him without the departmental/judicial proceedings referred to in this rule, but after giving the employee or pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity to explain.

                  Note 3.- The liabilities of an employee should be quantified either before or after retirement and intimated to him before retirement if possible or after retirement within a period of three years on becoming pensioner. The liabilities of a pensioner should be quantified and intimated to him.”

                  [Underline supplied]

16.    In the instant case, the original appellant retired from service in the year 2011. Ext.P6 demand was made only on 12.02.2018. In Ext.P2 bond, the appellant agreed to pay the Government on demand the entire amount drawn by her by way of pay and allowances for the period of deputation with a penalty of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, there is no question of quantifying the amount, since the quantum of liability is already mentioned in Ext.P2 bond. Therefore, Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR is not applicable to the instant case. At the same time, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, before initiating recovery steps, the Government ought to have given the original appellant a reasonable opportunity to explain as provided under note 2 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR. The issuance of Ext.P6 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant is a negation of natural justice.

17. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge did not direct the respondents to disburse the DCRG amount together with interest to the appellant as claimed in the writ petition. Since the liability of the original appellant in terms of Ext.P2 bond is not absolved, as found above, the learned Single Judge cannot be found faulted for not ordering the payment of DCRG with interest, though set aside Ext.P6 demand notice for refund of salary together with interest. The learned Single Judge rightly granted liberty to the respondents to take action in accordance with law.

18. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as perverse or illegal, which warrants interference by exercising appellate jurisdiction.

                  In the result, this writ appeal stands dismissed.