Dismissed

State of Kerala v. P.K. Dineshan

Kerala HC9 Apr 2018OP(KAT)/138/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed the State of Kerala's original petition challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order upholding recovery of excess salary. Relying on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, the Court found the State's recovery claim unsubstantiated given the Supreme Court judgment that grants already need not be reviewed, and found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order warranting i

What did the court decide?

The order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 759/2015 dismissing the application for recovery of excess salary is upheld, effectively quashing the recovery proceedings.

State of Kerala Vs P.K. Dineshan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶6

OP(KAT).No. 138 of 2018

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 759/2015 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 04-10-2016

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AND 6TH RESPONDENT IN THE O.A. :

¶9

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 001.

¶10

THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 694 014.

¶11

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, NORTHERN RANGE, KOZHIKODE, KERALA - 673 001.

¶12

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KANNUR UNIT, KANNUR - 67030 (CORRECTED AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AS PER ORDER DATED 28.07.2015 IN M.A. 1886/15), KERALA.

¶13

THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KANNUR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR 670 002, (ADDL. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.07.2015 IIN M.A.1884/15), KERALA.

¶14

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI. A.J. VARGHESE

¶15

OP(KAT).No. 138 of 2018

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT/5TH RESPONDENT IN THE O.A. :

¶17

P.K. DINESHAN, DRIVER SUB INSPECTOR, HIGHER GRADE (G 3452), VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KANNUR UNIT, KANNUR 670 307, RESIDING AT UDAYAM, NEAR CANAL PALAM, CHANDAPURAM ROAD, KOODALI P.O., KANNUR-670 380. (THE PLACE CHANDRAPURAM STANDS CORRECTED AS THANDAPPURAM AS PER ORDER DATED 28.7.2015 IN M.A.1886/15, KERALA. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, (A & E), KERALA, M.G.ROAD, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 039, KERALA.

¶18

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

OP(KAT).No. 138 of 2018

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXTS:

¶22

EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION ALONG WITH ALL THE ANNEXURES.

¶23

EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.A. 759/2015.

¶25

K. SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ.

¶26

¶27

O.P.(KAT) No. 138 of 2018

¶28

¶29

Dated this the 9^th day of April, 2018

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Surendra Mohan, J.

¶32

The State is before us challenging the order dated 4.10.2016 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (KAT for short) in O.A. No. 759 of 2015. The O.A. was filed by the first respondent who entered service of the Police Department as Constable (Driver). Such persons were granted time bound higher grades based on the orders prevailing in the Department, on completion of ten years, eighteen years and twenty three years of service. It was made clear in those orders that higher grades already granted need not be reviewed. However, apprehending recovery pursuant to re-fixation of pay in accordance with the orders applicable, writ petitions were filed before this Court. As per judgment

¶33

O.P.(KAT) 138/2018

¶34

¶35

dated 12.7.2007 in W.P.(C) No. 20787 of 2003 and connected cases, it was held that the orders would have effect only prospectively and that payments made earlier will not be recovered. Pursuant to the judgment, G.O.(Rt) No.3162/08/Home dated 16.10.2008 was also issued ordering that payments already made need not be recovered. However, on regularization of the pay based on the Government Orders, action was initiated for recovery of salary drawn in excess. The said order was challenged before this Court in writ petition. Later on, the writ petition was transferred to the KAT and was disposed of by the order impugned in this proceedings.

¶36

Heard. Though it is contended that the Government have the right to recover the amount due, we are not satisfied that the said contention has any substance especially in view of the decision in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (While Washer) (AIR 2015 SC 696). We have

¶37

O.P.(KAT) 138/2018

¶38

¶39

perused the order of the KAT. We do not find any infirmity

¶40

therein warranting an interference by us.

¶41

In the result, the O.P.(KAT) fails and is accordingly

dismissed.

Sd/-

K. SURENDRA MOHAN

JUDGE

Sd/ANNIE JOHN JUDGE

State of Kerala v. P.K. Dineshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. P.K. Dineshan

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

P.Sunil Vs Union of India

K.N.Sudha Vs District Medical Officer, Health, Palakkad

Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust Vs State of Kerala

Union of India Vs Benny.P.Jacob

C.P.Shibu Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs K.Nazar