STATE OF KERALA Vs. SAIFUL ISLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the Government, in respect of pay fixation of a few officers working in the Public Works Department as also the Agriculture Department, an error had been crept in, and it had come to the notice of the Accountant General when fixation was made at the time of conferment of grade promotions on the officers completing 20 years of service. After notice to the persons concerned, recovery steps were initiated in respect of the over payments alleged to have been made. Original Petitions had come to be filed at this juncture. A batch of cases so filed, at the instance of officers of both the Departments, had been disposed of by Mr. Justice M.R. Hariharan Nair on 03-06-2002. The learned Judge had held that the Government had right reserved for ordering refixation, when the Accountant General had noticed the error in such pay fixation. The Original Petitions were thereupon dismissed. It had been held as following:

(2.) Without perhaps noticing the judgment rendered on the subject, as above, Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, by judgment dated 20-06-2003, while dealing with the similar claims urged in a writ petition filed by officers of the Agricultural Department in O.P.No.2503 of 1996, had taken a view that the fixation as had been given to the persons concerned could not have been treated as erroneous. The recovery steps thereupon had been set aside. Following the judgment, similar original petitions arising from both the Departments had been disposed of on the self same line. Judgment in O.P. No. 8249 of 1993 has resulted in W.A.No. 1567 of 2004 O.P.No.2083 of 1993 (W.A. No. 1691 of 2004) pertains to the Public Works Department. O.P.No.3354 of 1996 from which w.A.No.968 of 2004, also had been allowed by the learned single Judge, which had been filed by personnel belonging to the Agricultural Department. The principal judgment is reported in Saifid Islam v. State of Kerala. It had been held as following:

(3.) The rest of the writ appeals before us are filed at the instance of the Government, raising a contention that the decision as above requires a reconsideration. Along with the said two batches of appeals, pending Original Petitions on the subject, which were yet to be disposed of, challenging the Government Orders proposing recovery of excess pay, also had been lissted for hearing.