THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER Vs. K.P. ALEYKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State is in appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.02.2015 in W.P.(C).No.17476 of 2013. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and has directed the appellants to refix her pension and to pay the arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

(2.) The respondent is a retired teacher. She retired from service on 31.03.2013. She joined service as an Upper Primary School Assistant ('UPSA', for short) on 22.07.1983. On 17.08.1988, she was promoted as High School Assistant ('HSA', for short). When the Pay Revision was implemented with effect from 01.03.1997, one Moideenkutty, who was her junior was found to be drawing higher pay. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions in the Pay Revision order, a junior-senior fixation was effected by stepping up her pay to that of her junior. The fixation was done with effect from 01.06.1997.

(3.) In 1998, on completion of 10 years' service, the respondent became entitled to the first time bound higher grade since she completed her 10 years' service on 16.08.1998. She was sanctioned her first higher grade from 17.08.1998. According to the appellants, she was sanctioned her next increment in August 1999 and the subsequent increments for the years 2000 and 2001 also were sanctioned in August. However, the Headmaster without any authority is alleged to have changed her date of increment from August to June. An entry to the said effect was made in her Service Book, which was approved by the District Educational Officer. On the said basis, she was sanctioned her 2nd higher grade also in 2006, with effect from 01.06.2006. In Ext.P1, an audit objection was raised to the effect that, though she became entitled to be sanctioned her higher grade only in August 1998, the same was sanctioned with effect from June. Therefore, her subsequent fixation of pay as per the Pay Revision of 2004 was also directed to be revised. The aggrieved respondent unsuccessfully challenged the proceedings before the authorities and finally in revision before the Government. By Ext.P6, the Government also rejected her contentions. It was aggrieved by the said order that the writ petition was filed.