Allowed

K.Radhamaniamma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Nov 2011WP(C)/8808/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the recovery of excess pay and reduction of a teacher's pay based on audit objections. The court followed the precedent in Narayanan v. State of Kerala, holding that such recovery and reduction after a long delay following a favorable revision is impermissible.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 and note to Rule 4 in Ext.P3 were quashed, and the petitioner was allowed to reckon aided school service for weightage.

K.Radhamaniamma Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 8808 of 2005(W)

¶5

-------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

----------------------

¶8

SMT.K. RADHAMANIAMMA, W/O.M. KUMARASWAMI PILLAI, AGED 52 YEARS, H.S.A (SENIOR GRADE), GOVT.MOHAMMADAN G.H.S.S., ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT `SAROVAR', PAZHAVEEDU P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

------------------------

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTD BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT), TRICHUR.

¶15

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA.

¶16

5. THE D.E.O. ALAPPUZHA.

¶17

6. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT.MOHAMMADAN G.H.S.S., ALAPPUZHA.

¶18

R1 TO R6 BY ADV.SRI. SHAIJ RAJ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 8808 of 2005(W)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF 1983 PAY REVISION ORDER STATING THE DETAILS OF SERVICE, WHICH RECKONED FOR WEIGHTAGE.

¶25

EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF 1988 PAY REVISION ORDER EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE RULES FOR FIXATION OF PAY IN THE REVISED ISSUED BY THE GOVT. ALONG WITH 1998 PAY REVISION ORDER G.O.(P) NO.3000/98/Fin. DATED 25.11.98.

¶26

EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 04.03.05 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT FIXING RS.20,253/- AS THE AMOUNT TO BE RECOVERED FROM THE PETITIONER AND REFIXED HER PAY LESS ONE INCREMENT.

¶27

EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2003 IN O.P.NO.24702/2002 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶28

EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE INTERIM STAY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF CONTROLLING OFFICER IN REDUCTION AND RE-FIXATION OF PAY AND RECOVERY GRANTED IN W.P.6024 OF 2005 DATED 21.02.2005

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

B.P. Ray, J.

====================================

¶35

W.P.(C)No.8808 of 2005

¶36

====================================

¶37

Dated this the 24^th day of November, 2011.

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:

¶40

i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P4; ii) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing note to Rule 4 in Ext.P3 if it really intends prohibition in reckoning aided school service for the purpose of weightage;

¶41

iii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to reckon her aided school service for the purpose of weightage as was already done by the competent authority initially on the basis of Ext.P3 pay revision order;

¶42

iv) grant such other reliefs as may be prayed and the Court may deem fit to grant; and

¶43

v) grant the cost of this writ petition.”

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved

¶45

in this case is covered by the decision in Narayanan v. State of

¶46

Kerala reported in (2008(3) K.L.T. 188) wherein it is held that

¶47

recovery of excess pay earlier granted to a teacher counting prior service in aided school cannot be recovered and reduction of pay

¶48

W.P.(C)No.8808 of 2005

¶49

-:2:-

¶50

ordered on the basis of audit objection after a long time is not permissible. Following the aforesaid decision, I allow this writ petition quashing Ext.P4.

¶51

B.P. Ray, Judge.

¶52

sl.

K.Radhamaniamma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Radhamaniamma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pocker Vs Perambra Panchayath

Vichithran Vs Government of Kerala

M.M.Vijayakumari Vs Asst.Educational Officer

S.Salahudheen Vs State of Kerala

Sivadasan K. Vs State

M/S.Kerala Spinners Ltd. Vs Regional P.F.Commissioner