Petitioner challenged audit objections and orders seeking refund of excess pay drawn due to erroneous fixation over 21 years prior. Court quashed the objection and order, directed no recovery, and ordered computation of pension benefits.
Exhibits P3 and P7 set aside; no amount to be recovered; petition allowed.
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 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/26TH ASWINA, 1938
WP(C).No. 20209 of 2014 (A)
PETITIONER :
M.K.SUDHA BHAI, RETD. H.S.A.(MUSIC), VIVEKANANDA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, KADAMPANAD, RESIDING AT DEVARANAYANAM, THUVAYOOR SOUTH, KADAMPANAD, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 691 552.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTARAKARA - 691 506.
R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 20209 of 2014 (A)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
ANU SIVARAMAN, J. ----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 20209 of 2014
----------------------------------------------Dated this the 18th October, 2016
JUDGMENT
The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Exhibits P3 and P7 and to declare that the petitioner is not liable to get refund of an amount of Rs.1,31,767/-, which is found to be drawn by her as excess pay due to erroneous fixation of pay. The petitioner claims that she was appointed as HSA (Music) in an aided school on 28.1.1976 for certain spells. She claims that she was fully qualified for such appointment. However, she was regularly appointed only with effect from 2.6.1980 in a scale of pay. The earlier appointments were on a consolidated pay. It is stated that Exhibit P3 was admittedly communicated to the petitioner only on 17.9.2010. The objection was to the effect that the grant of higher grade with effect from 1.6.1989 by counting the unqualified service period was not in order. It was on this basis that amounts were sought to be recovered from the petitioner.
2
WP(C).20209/14
with regard to erroneous fixation of pay counting under-qualified service while granting time bound higher grade. It is found that there were no orders or rules in force permitting to count the under qualified service for higher grade and pay revision and therefore, the grant of higher grade with effect from 1.6.1984 was erroneous. This order is under challenge in this writ petition.
3
WP(C).20209/14
refunded. It is further contended that Rule 3C of Part III KSR specifically provides for recovery of amounts drawn in excess even from pensionary benefits. It is therefore contended that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner can have no application in the instant case.
4
WP(C).20209/14
consolidated pay. The petitioner produced Exhibit P8 to show that the service with fixed pay would also be reckoned for grade promotion, increment etc. In view of the fact that the error in fixation of pay was detected by the 1st respondent after 21 years, I do not propose to go into the merits of the contentions of the parties with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner for the fixation of pay as has been done with effect from 1.6.1989. I am of the view that the amounts drawn by the petitioner could not have been sought to be recovered at a distance of more than 20 years from the date of fixation, since the error was apparently noticed for the first time only by Exhibit P3.
In the above view of the matter, Exhibits P3 and P7 are set aside. It is directed that the respondents shall not recover any amount from the petitioner on the strength of Exhibits P3 and P7. All other legal questions are left open. The pensionary benefits due to the petitioner shall also be computed and paid to her without further delay.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
ANU SIVARAMAN
vgs22/10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether correctness of the refund demand for excess pay drawn due to erroneous fixation and audited after 21 years.
Whether the petitioner is liable to repay amounts recovered via an audit objection raised 21 years after the error in pay fixation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M.K. Sudha Bhai
Accountant General (A&E), Thiruvananthapuram
District Educational Officer, Kottarakara
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
