Petitioner withdrew plea regarding training period for seniority but sought to stop recovery of excess payments made after granting higher grade. Court held recovery unjustifiable at this stage.
Excess amount paid to petitioner shall not be recovered from him.
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 V.CHITAMBARESH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
TUESDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1940
OP(KAT).No. 9 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TA 5687/2012 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 23-07-2018
PETITIONER/S:
SASIKUMAR B, AGED 52 YEARS U.D.CLERK, C.H.C MULIYAR, P.O.MULIYAR, KASARGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH -GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
OP(KAT).No. 9 of 2019
JUDGMENT
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.
Mr Kaleeswaram Raj, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner gracefully gives up the plea that the training period of a Police Constable should be reckoned for the purpose of seniority and other benefits. What survives is the recovery of the payments made earlier after the petitioner was granted higher grade reckoning the past service as Police Constable. We do feel that the recovery at this belated stage is not justifiable drawing support from State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher's case) (2015 (4) SCC 334) .
Sd/-
V.CHITAMBARESH
JUDGE
Sd/-
sks/12.3.2019
A.M.BABU
JUDGE
3
OP(KAT).No. 9 of 2019
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF 21.06.1993. |
THE | APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF | THEN | ORDER DATED 15.07.1993. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF | THE | ORDER DATED 02.10.2001. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF 16.08.2004. |
THE | REPRESENTATION DATED |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF ISSUED BY THE |
THE 3RD |
ORDER DATED 31.08.2004 RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF 12.02.2007. |
THE | REPRESENTATION DATED |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF IN W.P(C)NO.4 |
THE 044/ |
JUDGMENT DATED 21.02.2007 2007. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF 02.04.2007 FI THE 1ST RESPO |
THE LED NDEN |
REPRESENTATION DATED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE T. |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY OF | THE | LETTER DATED 16.04.2007. |
| EXHIBIT P10 | TRUE COPY OF 08.06.2007. |
G.O( | RT)NO.2036/2007 DATED |
| EXHIBIT P11 | TRUE COPY OF | THE | REVIEW PETITION. |
| EXHIBIT P12 | TRUE COPY OF 28.09.2007. |
THE | COVERING LETTER DATED |
| EXHIBIT P13 | TRUE COPY OF | THE | LETTER DATED 09.08.2007. |
| EXHIBIT P14 | TRUE COPY OF | THE | LETTER DATED 17.10.2007. |
| EXHIBIT P15 | TRUE COPY OF | THE | LETTER DATED 14.12.2007. |
| EXHIBIT P16 | TRUE COPY OF 16.01.2008 TO DATED 16.01.2 |
THE GETH 008. |
REPRESENTATION DATED ER WITH COVERING LETTER |
| EXHIBIT P17 | TRUE COPY OF 15.03.2008. |
THE | REMINDER NO.1 DATED |
| EXHIBIT P18 | TRUE COPY OF | THE | REMINDER NO.2 DATED |
4
OP(KAT).No. 9 of 2019
26.03.2008.
| EXHIBIT P19 | TRUE COPY OF THE 15.04.2008 TOGETH DATED 15.04.2008. |
REPRESENTATION DATED ER WITH COVERING LETTER |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P20 | TRUE COPY OF THE | LETTER DATED 28.04.2008. |
| EXHIBIT P21 | TRUE COPY OF THE 13.11.2008. |
COMMUNICATION DATED |
| EXHIBIT P22 | TRUE COPY OF THE | LETTER DATED 21.11.2009. |
| EXHIBIT P23 | TRUE COPY OF THE 02.12.2009. |
REPRESENTATION DATED |
| EXHIBIT P24 | TRUE COPY OF THE | LETTER DATED 16.12.2009. |
| EXHIBIT P25 | TRUE COPY OF THE | ORDER DATED 19.01.2010. |
| EXHIBIT P26 | TRUE COPY OF THE | ORDER DATED 04.02.2010. |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether recovery of excess payments made after granting higher grade reckoning past service as Police Constable is justifiable at a belated stage.
Whether the impugned tribunal's judgment allowing recovery should be modified.
Whether the Higher Judicial Service Training period should be reckoned for seniority and benefits in a Police Constable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher's case)Relied on¶24
State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher's case) (2015 (4) SCC 334) · Who else cites this
SASIKUMAR B
STATE OF KERALA
V.CHITAMBARESH
A.M.BABU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V.CHITAMBARESH and A.M.BABU
Parties & counsel
