MOHAMMED KUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 4 petitioners were appointed under Rule 9 (a) (i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules as Junior Instructors in various subjects in the Industrial Training Institute, Area code. Such appointments were on 2nd April, 1982, 1st April, 1982, 25th October, 1982 and 27th May, 1983 respectively. The scale of salary applicable to Junior Instructors in the Industrial Training Institute was Rs. 420720. On completion of one year of service, each of the petitioners was given annual increments of Rs. 13/ -. This entailed enhancement in dearness allowance as well. Petitioners 1 and 2 have obtained two annual increments, whereas petitioners 3 and 4 have obtained only one each. In Ext. P2, the third respondent required the petitioners to refund the amount of increments, which, according to him, were not due to the petitioners. It was, therefore, ordered that recovery of the excess amount would be effected from the salary of the petitioners from November, 1984 onwards. Petitioners challenge Ext. P2 order.

(2.) THE first submission is that they are entitled to increment in terms of rules 31 and 33 of the Kerala Service Rules. Reference is made to note (1) of Rule 31, Part I, Kerala Service Rules and also to the Special Rules for the Kerala Craftsman Traning Subordinate Service to urge that it was not necessary to acquire additional qualification to claim annual increment on completion of the requisite period. Another submission of the petitioners is that the Government had clarified in G. O. (P) 301/67/fin dated 24th July 1967 and G. O. (P) 612/68/fin. dated 3rd March, 1969, that provisional hands are entitled to increments. The third submission is that Ext. P2 violates the principles of natural justice since they were not heard before recovery was directed. The last submission is that stoppage of increment and the recovery from pay are specified as punishments under Rule 11 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, and such penalties could be imposed only for good and sufficient reasons. Petitioners want to avoid recovery of the annual increments granted to them, pursuant to Ext P2 order.

(3.) PETITIONERS were appointed under Rule 9 (a) (i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. It is clear from the provisions of the above rule, that the appointment is otherwise than in accordance with the general or special rules. It is also clear that it was a precarious appointment, which does not entitle the appointee to claim any benefit, other than the emoluments attached to the post. It is also clear that even unqualified persons can be appointed under that rule. The period for which such an appointment could be made was limited as 90 days under the proviso to Rule 9 (a) (i)of the rules. By an amendment in 1982, the maximum period of such appointment has been enchanted to 180 days. Clause (v) of Rule 9 (a) (i) of the rules provides that "there shall be paid to a person appointed under Clause (i) or Clause (ii) the minimum pay in the time scale of pay applicable to such service, class or category.