The petitioner challenged a recovery notice for excess pay drawn after her exemption from service rules. The court quashed the notice, holding that recovery was improper once the exemption was granted without the petitioner's collusion.
The recovery notice Ext.P12 is set aside; no recovery shall be effected from the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2016/2ND CHAITHRA, 1938
WP(C).No. 11095 of 2006 (U)
PETITIONER(S):
THRESIAMMA C.P., RETD. HEADMISTRESS, NADAVALLIL, PULIYOOR, GARDENS NALANCHIRA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.V. ANIL
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION (D) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PATHANAMTHITTA, THIRUVALLA.
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA.
R,R2 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 11095 of 2006 (U)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
EXT.P15 COPY OF ORDER NO.72404/D3/04/G.EDN. DATED 23.10.06
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A TO JUDGE
SB
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
===================== W.P.(C) No.11095 of 2006 - U
========================= Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved with the recovery notice issued at Ext.P12. The recovery has been sought on the ground that at the time when the petitioner was promoted as Headmistress on 02.05.2000, as evidenced in Ext.P6, the petitioner did not have 16 years graduate service as provided in Rule 44A of Chapter XIVA of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (for brevity, K.E.R).
follows:
The petitioner was appointed as H.S.A on
25.06.1970. The petitioner admittedly was a person, having Vidwan with TTC. The promotion of teachers with Vidwan and
2
W.P.(C) No.11095 of 2006 - U
TTC was regularised by Ext.P1 Government Order bearing No. G.O(MS) No. 217/74/G.Edn.,/Tvm., dated 04.11.1974. The petitioner while continuing was appointed as Headmistress on 02.05.2000. At that point of time, the petitioner had taken B.Ed in the year 1999. However, since there was no graduate service subsequent to the acquisition of B.Ed qualification, the recovery is now sought to be made.
petitioner from application of Rule 44A of Chapter XIVA K.E.R. The learned Government Pleader would contend that as per Rule 3 of Chapter 26 K.E.R, for drawing the pay scale of Headmistress, a teacher should have minimum 16 years continuance graduate service. Graduate service has also been held to be as a trained graduate teacher in Government of Kerala and others v. Chandrasekhara Panicker [1979 KLT 908] . The exemption granted under Rule 44A would not
3
W.P.(C) No.11095 of 2006 - U
entitle the petitioner to the scale of pay of the Headmistress, is the contention raised by the Government Pleader.
appointed as Headmistress after exempting the requirement under Rule 44A. The petitioner's promotion as HSA was also regularised despite the fact that the petitioner did not have trained graduate service. The petitioner having been exempted from Rule 44A, was also allowed to draw the scale of
pay applicable to Headmistress, from the date of her promotion. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2003 and the present action is taken after about two years on 30.03.2005. The recovery would be squarely hit by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [2015 (1) KLT 429 (SC)] .
4
W.P.(C) No.11095 of 2006 - U
context of the petitioner having not colluded in any manner to enable the sanction of the higher scale of pay. The recovery notice, Ext.P12 would stand set aside. There shall be no recovery effected from the petitioner, on the ground of the irregular grant of higher pay scale in the post of Headmistress. The writ petition hence would stand allowed. No
costs.
Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
SB/23/03/2016
// true copy //
P.A to Judge.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether recovery of excess pay granted to a petitioner who was exempted from service eligibility rules after her appointment is valid.
Whether recovery for irregular grant of higher pay scale can be enforced against a retired headmistress who did not collude in obtaining the sanction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Government of Kerala and others v. Chandrasekhara PanickerExplained¶44
Government of Kerala and others v. Chandrasekhara Panicker [1979 KLT 908]
State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)Affirmed¶49
State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [2015 (1) KLT 429 (SC)]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
THRESIAMMA C.P.
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION (D) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PATHANAMTHITTA, THIRUVALLA
THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA
K VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
