Allowed

Saramu.K.Paul, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Apr 2024WP(C)/20042/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition by a School Assistant, the High Court rectified a clerical mistake in the option form regarding a change of pay scale. The court held that the actual intent and verified details indicated the correct date of effect was January 1, 2012, rendering the struck-down audit objection unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the audit objection is held unsustainable; orders pursuant to the objection (Exts.P1, P5, P6) are quashed.

Saramu.K.Paul, Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN FRIDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 20042 OF 2019

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

SARAMU.K.PAUL, AGED 49 YEARS LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, KANJIRAMUKKU M.G. SCHOOL, KANJIRAMUKKU, KUNNAMKULAM SUB EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶6

BY ADVS.

¶7

K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) S.M.PRASANTH G.RENJITH ASWINI SANKAR R.S. T.H.ARAVIND T.RAMPRASAD UNNI

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶10

2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶11

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR-680001.

¶12

4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR-680503.

¶13

5 THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR-680001.

¶14

WP(C) NO.1839 OF 2023

¶15

-: 2 :-

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. SR. GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Sathish Ninan, J.

¶20

WP(C) No.20042 of 2019

¶21

Dated this the 5^th day of April, 2024

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Petitioner was appointed as L.P.School Assistant in

¶24

M.G.School, Kanjiramukku in Kunnamkulam Education Sub District in the Thrissur District, on 30/06/1997. She completed 15 years of service on 29/06/2012. On such completion she became eligible for grant of Senior Grade.

¶25

For the grant of Senior Grade, petitioner

¶26

submitted Ext.P4 option dated 25/10/2012. In Ext.P4, the

¶27

date of option was shown as 30/06/2012. The pay was shown as 19,740/-. The option was duly accepted and sanctioned by the 4^th respondent – The Assistant Educational Officer. The petitioner was being paid salary accordingly.

¶28

Subsequently, there was an audit objection as

¶29

-: 2 :-

¶30

WP(C) NO.20042 OF 2019

¶31

is evidenced by Ext.P1, that there has been wrong fixation of pay since one additional increment has been included in the petitioner's pay. As per Ext.P1, such error was directed to be corrected and the excess amount paid to the petitioner was ordered to be recovered. Exts.P5 and P6 communications have been issued in pursuance thereof. It is thereupon that the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶32

I have heard Sri.S.M.Prasanth, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Bijoy Chandran, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶33

As noticed, the audit objection is that, one additional increment has been included in the pay of the petitioner. Increment was due to the petitioner on 01/07/2012. Petitioner completed 15 years of service and became eligible for Senior Grade on 29/06/2012. She submitted the Form of Option on 25/10/2012. In Ext.P4,

¶34

-: 3 :-

¶35

WP(C) NO.20042 OF 2019

¶36

the scale of pay shown in Column/Sl.No.12 as inclusive of the increment due on 01/07/2012. The salary payable as shown in Column/Sl.No.13 in Ext.P4 was also shown as inclusive of the increment due on 01/07/2012. At Column/Sl.No.14 of Ext.P4, the date of effect of option was shown as 01/07/2012. At Column/Sl.No.15, the normal date of next increment was shown as 01/07/2013. The above facts indicate that the petitioner intended the date of option for Senior Grade as 01/07/2012. However, in Ext.P4 at Column/Sl.No.9 - the 'date of option if any', was shown as 30/06/2012. It is based on the mentioning of the said date of option in Ext.P4 that the audit objection was raised. This is so because one increment fell due only on 01/07/2012. According to the petitioner it was a mistake that had occurred on his part.

¶37

As noticed above, in Ext.P4 option itself, the

¶38

-: 4 :- WP(C) NO.20042 OF 2019

¶39

petitioner has shown the next scale of pay inclusive of the increment due on 01/07/2012 and the pay has also been indicated accordingly. Further in Ext.P4, the date of effect of the option was also shown as 01/07/2012. The next increment being due on 01/07/2012 and if petitioner intended 30/6/2012 as the date of option she could not have taken into account the increment due on 01/07/2012. It is evident that in Ext.P4, the mentioning of the date of option as '30/06/2012' can only be a mistake as claimed by the petitioner. Incidentally, it is also relevant to note that the 4^th respondent – The Assistant Educational Officer who verified Ext.P4 and sanctioned the same also took note of the scale of pay and the date of effect of the option as mentioned in Ext.P4 and considered the date of option as 01/07/2012. On the peculiar facts obtained in the present case it could only be held that the mentioning of the date of

¶40

-: 5 :-

¶41

WP(C) NO.20042 OF 2019

¶42

option in Ext.P4 as '30/06/2012' could only be a mistake.

¶43

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the mentioning of the date of option in Ext.P4 at Column/SL.No.9 as '30/06/2012' is a mistake and it has to be read as '01/07/2012'. In the light of such declaration, the audit objection cannot be sustained. Exts.P1, P5 and P6 orders issued pursuant to such objections are quashed.

¶44

Sd/Sathish Ninan, Judge

¶45

rsr

¶46

-: 6 :-

¶47

WP(C) NO.20042 OF 2019

¶48

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION MADE BY THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVISED SCALE. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.11.2017. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF OPTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF GOVERNMENT DATED 29.04.2019. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10.06.2019 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION.

¶51

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P).NO.129/2019/FIN DATED 23.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

Saramu.K.Paul, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saramu.K.Paul, 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

Lissy John Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Jibi Vs the State of Kerala

Sherly Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Bimisha.P.K Vs Meat Productions of India Ltd.(Mpi)

Smt. Meera T.K. Vs Kerala Water Authority

Arunkumar a. Vs Kerala Water Authority