SUDHALETHA P.M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who joined as UPSA in an aided School in the year 1987 in a leave vacancy and continued thereafter on regular appointment, filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P2 audit objection raised in the year 2015 as against the leave availed by her in the year 1987 and proceedings for re-fixation of her pay and recovery orders by Ext.P4 in 2016.

(2.) By Ext.P4 letter, the Deputy Director of Education addressed the DEO informing that the reply to Ext.P2 audit objection cannot be accepted and directed that petitioner's pay has to be refixed and the excess pay drawn by her has to be refunded. Audit objection in Ext.P2 was that the petitioner who was initially appointed for the period from 15.09.1987 to 11.12.1987 in a temporary vacancy, availed leave without allowance for the period from 29.10.1987 to 06.11.1987 on medical grounds. It was found that the petitioner was not eligible for availing such leave since her appointment was on temporary basis. Therefore it was directed that her appointment had to be limited for the period from 15.09.197 to 28.10.1987 and increment granted to her reckoning the entire period from 15.09.1987 to 11.12.1987 shall be revised and recovered after re-fixing her pay excluding the said period. Even though the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation pointing out that the audit objection was raised at a belated stage when she was due to retire from service in 2017, that her probation was declared as early as in 1989, that she was enjoying the benefits since 1987, etc and requested to drop the objection, the Deputy Director of Education passed Ext.P4 order rejecting the same. Petitioner had also pointed out that leave without allowance was permissible for a temporary employee as per Rule 88(ii) of Part I KSR and the leave availed by her, was only for a period of 9 days.

(3.) Respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the LWA in the case of a temporary employee was liable to be considered in accordance with Appendix VIII of Part I KSR and that LWA on medical certificate cannot be granted to temporary hands working in leave vacancies. It was stated that her probation was declared on 05.03.1987 reckoning the LWA period; the LWA period was reckoned for weightage for pay revision and for time bound higher grades. It is stated that 3rd respondent, who is the competent authority detected the mistake in pay fixation well before the retirement. According to the 3 rd respondent Rule 88 of Part I KSR does not apply to those who were appointed on temporary basis and therefore the prior appointment was liable to be revised as one for the period from 15.09.1987 to 28.10.2017 and her pay was liable to be re-fixed accordingly and the excess pay was liable to be recovered.