Partly allowed

Jameela P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Nov 2016WP(C)/4659/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of writ petition challenging erroneous pay fixation order. Although objection was sustained in principle regarding pay scale placement, recovery of excess amounts already drawn was barred after long delay and audit approval. Bench directed re-examination without collection of excess pay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed not to refund excess pay already drawn. Respondent Head to reconsider fixation objection within two months regarding 2004 revision.

Jameela P. Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4659 of 2013 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

JAMEELA P., AGED 52 YEARS,

¶8

W/O.MOHAMMED ALI, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTAT (ARABIC) DARUNNAJATH HIGH SCHOOL,NELLIPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

¶12

GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 001.

¶13

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶14

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD,PIN-678 001.

¶15

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD-PIN-678 001.

¶16

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

msv/

¶19

WP(C).No. 4659 of 2013 (F)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION NOTED BY THE AUDIT WING OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION DTD 2/11/2012 EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO 259/2006/FIN DTD 12/6/2006

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

msv/

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

W.P.(C) No.4659 of 2013

¶32

¶33

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2016

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2

¶36

order dated 02.11.2012. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the fixation of pay consequent to the pay revision in 2004 is in order. The petitioner was appointed as HSA (Arabic) in an aided school on 24.07.1982. On completion of 23 years of service, she was granted fixation of pay in the scale of pay applicable to HSA, Selection Grade at the rate of Rs.7,750/- (6500-10550) in accordance with the 1997 pay revision order. The petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs.13,610/- in the senior grade scale of pay of Rs.9590 - 16650/- and at Rs.14,750/- in the revised Selection Grade scale of Rs.10790 - 18,000/-. The District Educational Officer approved the fixation of pay and the Deputy Director had countersigned the same. An audit party under the Deputy Director of Education had also checked the options and found

¶37

W.P.(C) No.4659 of 2013 -2-

¶38

them to be in order. The petitioner relied on Ext.P1 entry in

¶39

her service book to state that all required checks had been done, and the pay fixation of the petitioner was found to be in order. However, long thereafter, the Deputy Director of Eduction had raised an objection pointed out by the audit wing by Ext.P2 communication letter dated 02.11.2012. It stated that the fixation of pay of the petitioner was erroneous, and that she was liable to refund the excess amounts paid to her on account of wrong fixation.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶41

the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the fixation of pay had been duly checked by all authorities and found correct. It is submitted that Ext.P2 objection raised is therefore unsustainable, in view of the provisions of Ext.P3 pay revision order.

¶43

The learned Government Pleader on the other hand, would submit that the petitioner's pay was initially fixed

¶44

W.P.(C) No.4659 of 2013 -3-

¶45

at Rs.13,610/- from 01.07.2004 and at Rs.14,750/- from 24.07.2005 and such fixation was entered in her service book.

¶46

Her pay was later fixed at Rs.32,800/- with effect from 01.07.2011 in the scale of pay of Rs.19240-34500/-. The pay fixation checking team had raised objection dated 02.11.2012 to this fixation, stating that the fixation of pay consequent to the pay revision in 2004 was incorrect, which was carried over to the 2009 pay revision and therefore, the petitioner could have been placed only in the scale of pay of Rs.18,74033680/-. It is therefore contended that the objections raised in Ext.P2, and the recovery order pursuant thereof, are perfectly in order.

¶47

I have considered the contentions raised on

¶48

either side. It is clear from the pleadings and the materials on record that the issue is with regard to the fixation of the petitioner's pay in pursuance to a pay revision order made effective from 01.07.2004. It is the essential contention that the mistake which has occurred in the pay revision order in 2004 has been carried over in the fixation for subsequent pay

¶49

W.P.(C) No.4659 of 2013 -4-

¶50

revisions as well, which has resulted in drawal of excess pay by the petitioner. It is clear from Ext.P1 that the fixation of pay in respect of the petitioner had been done by the competent authorities, and had been subjected to verification by appropriate authorities. The entries have also been checked and certified in audit in the year 2009. The mistakes, if any, which are pointed out in Ext.P2, had escaped the attention of the audit party which had made the inspection.

¶51

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that even if the objections raised in Ext.P2 are sustainable, the recovery which would have resulted from the pay already drawn by the petitioner, could not have been acted upon. The recovery had been interdicted by this Court and has not been acted upon. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the recovery of amounts drawn as excess by the petitioner on account of fixation of pay, which was duly approved by the authorities, as well as the checking team in audit, cannot be imposed against the petitioner at this distance of time.

¶52

W.P.(C) No.4659 of 2013

¶53

-5-

¶54

The learned Government Pleader would however

¶55

submit that the fixation of pay on account of operation of pay revision orders is done on the specific undertaking given by employees that if any mistake is later found in the fixation, the same will be liable to be recalled, and the employee will also be liable to refund the amount drawn in excess.

¶56

I am of the opinion that the objection raised by the third respondent against the fixation of pay of the petitioner should be considered with notice to the petitioner, and orders passed thereon, before any further steps are taken in the matter. I am of the definite view that in the light of the approval of the pay fixation as contained in Ext.P1, no amounts can be recovered from the petitioner, even if Ext.P2 objections are found to be sustainable. In the above view of the matter, it is directed that the second respondent shall consider Ext.P2 and any explanation to be preferred by the petitioner to the same, and pass orders on the fixation of pay of the petitioner in respect of the 2004 and later pay revision orders. However, even if the objection raised in Ext.P2 is

¶57

W.P.(C) No.4659 of 2013 -6-

¶58

found to be sustainable, no amount shall be recovered from the pay already drawn by the petitioner. Orders as directed above shall be passed by the second respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶59

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶60

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE

¶61

Jameela P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jameela P. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aboobacker P. Vs the State of Kerala

Jyotheendranath.D. Vs the State of Kerala

Krishnakumar P.P. Vs State of Kerala

T.D. Bashardeen Vs Centre for Earth Science Studies

V.R.Jayakrishna Vs Kerala Gramin Bank

Sony K.Paul Vs Kerala Public Service Commission