MICHAEL.K.U. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STEPS taken by the respondents to recover the excess payment given to the petitioner, on wrong fixation of salary pursuant to 1997 Pay Revision, (based on the option exercised by the petitioner) is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner, while working as Headmaster of Vayathur AUP School, retired from the school on 31.03.2013. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was appointed against a regular vacancy as a UPSA on 01.06.1982. Higher Grade was sanctioned on 04.10.1991, followed by Sr.Grade and Sel.Grade on 04.10.1999 and 04.10.2004 respectively in connection with the Pay Revision, 1997. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 option to have the pay fixed on the date of his increment, i.e. w.e.f. 01.10.1999. Pay of the petitioner was accordingly fixed at Rs.5000/ - in the scale of pay of Rs.4500 -7000/ - accepting the option. Subsequently, pursuant to Ext.P1 Audit Objection issued by the second respondent /Dy.Director of Education, it was noted that fixation of pay was not correct as the same happened to be fixed at Rs.5000/ - in the scale of pay of Rs.4500 -7000/ - under the wrong belief and impression that the petitioner had completed '18 years' of service on 01.10.1999 making him eligible for the relevant grade; whereas he had actually completed only '17 years' as on that date and that 18 years would have been completed only on 04.10.1999. By virtue of wrong fixation of pay of the petitioner, much excess payment had been resulted, which was sought to be recovered .

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent/AEO submits, on the basis of the contents of the counter affidavit, that the course pursued by the concerned respondent is perfectly within the four walls of law . It is pointed out that the factual position with regard to the eligible extent of service as on the relevant date is not disputed and as on '01.10.1999', the petitioner was having only '17' years of service for weightage, which included the whole broken period of service as well. The version of the respondents is discernible from paragraph 5 and 9 which are extracted below: