DEPUTY COMPTROLLER Vs. K P SANTHABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petition was preferred by the respondent herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P1 and P2 to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner from 05/02/1996 till the date of retirement and also for other consequential relief. Petitioner retired from service of the Kerala Agricultural University as Programmer on 31/07/2002.

(2.) Petitioner was sanctioned higher grade with effect from 05/10/1995 after completion of 22 years of service and later she was promoted as Programmer on 05/12/1996. On promotion of the petitioner from the post of Junior Programmer after granting the higher grade to the post of Programmer, the pay of the petitioner was fixed taking the basic pay drawn in the time bound higher grade scale. Actually, her pay in the promoted post of Programmer should have been fixed on the basic pay notionally at lower post. While fixing the pay of the petitioner in the promoted post taking the basic pay as drawn in the time bound higher scale the University had obtained an undertaking from the petitioner that in case it is found that the pay is wrongly fixed and the petitioner was paid excess pay, the same could be refunded from the terminal benefits. When the retirement papers of the petitioner was submitted to the local fund audit, the discrepancy in the fixation of pay was noticed. Accordingly Ext. P1 was issued by the local fund audit. On the basis of Ext. P1 University verified the claim and was satisfied that there was wrong fixation of pay scale of the petitioner in the post of Programmer. University then issued Ext. P2 proceedings fixing the retirement benefits of the petitioner. It was directed that the excess amount drawn by the petitioner should be recovered from DCRG.

(3.) Learned Single Judge however, allowed the writ petition noticing that Ext. P1 audit objection was dated 16/10/2002, while the petitioner retired from service on 31/07/2002. Learned Single Judge also noticed that during the period when the petitioner was in service there was no audit objection and Ext. P1 audit objection was issued without notice to the petitioner. Under such circumstance learned Single Judge took the view that it is not open to the University to recover the amount by withholding the DCRG. Learned Single Judge directed to disburse the DCRG to the petitioner with 8% interest from 01/08/2003.