JOY Vs. D E O KOTHAMANGALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, appointed as an H.S.A., on 5-8-1985, in a leave vacancy, was appointed as such, in a regular vacancy on 1-6-1987. He worked so, till the abolition of that post on 14-7-1992. On the next day, 15-7-1992, he was appointed as U.P.S.A. in the same school. He was granted a higher grade as U.P.S.A. on 27-3-1997 reckoning his earlier service as H.S.A. also, in counting the total length of service for determining his entitlement for such higher grade. This was objected to in the Audit, leading to the impugned action whereby, the differential on account of the grant of the higher grade, from 27-3-1997 to 30-4-2001, is ordered to be recovered from the petitioner's salary.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that going by Ext.P6, the three Government Orders relied on against the petitioner in Ext.P2, are not in force. It is further argued that by virtue of the decision of the Division Bench in Secretary to Government v. Mary (2004 (2) KLT 1090) explaining the earlier decision of the Full Bench in Krishna Panicker v. State of Kerala (1993 (2) KLT 1058), the tagging along of the service as a Primary Teacher or an U.P.S.A. for the purpose of higher grade as an H.S.A. cannot be treated as always impermissible and therefore, as a corollary, the prior service of the petitioner as an H.S.A. before he entered service as U.P.S.A. can also be tagged along to determine the total length of service to grant him higher grade as a U.P.S.A..

(3.) It was also argued that at any rate, the excess payments to the petitioner on account of an erroneous pay fixation are not the results of any action attributable to him and therefore, the impugned recovery cannot be sustained.