SEENA K C ANANDASARAMOM; ANJANA T ANANDASRAMOM Vs. STATE OF KERALA; DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION; GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners are the appellants. They were working as LPSA/UPSA in the Anandasramom Upper Primary School, managed by the 3rd respondent. The first appellant was appointed as LPSA from 01.12.2004 to 31.03.2005 and thereafter, from 01.06.2005. The second appellant was appointed as UPSA from 18.07.2004 to 14.10.2003, 19.11.2003 to 25.01.2004 and 14.09.2004 to 31.03.2005. Thereafter, she was again appointed with effect from 01.08.2005. The appointments of the first appellant from 01.06.2005 and that of the second appellant from 01.08.2005 remained unapproved. The earlier spells of their appointments were already approved and they received salary also. The claim of the appellants for approval of their appointments from 01.06.2005 and 01.08.2005 respectively was considered and disposed of by the Government by Ext.P5 order dated 11.07.2007. The approval was ordered to be granted with effect from 01.02.2006. Their appointments from 1.6.2005 and 1.8.2005 were not approved for the reason that the Manager failed to appoint protected teachers, before fresh hands from the open market were appointed. However, the Government diluted the rigour of the relevant order, by issuing GO(P) No.46/06/G.Edn. dated 01.02.2006. That was the reason, why the Government, by Ext.P5 order, permitted approval of appointment of the appellants from 01.02.2006.

(2.) While implementing Ext.P5, the Assistant Educational Officer directed the appellants to repay the salary received by them for the earlier spells of their approved service. Left with no other option, the appellants refunded the salary as per Exts.P6 and P7. Challenging the proceedings, the copies of which, were never served on them, but, based on which, they were made to refund the salaries received by them, the appellants preferred the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal.

(3.) On going through Ext.P5, we notice that there was no direction by the Government to cancel the approval of appointment of the earlier spells of service or to get refunded the salary paid to them. The Government only said to approve their appointments from 01.02.2006. So, we asked the learned Government Pleader to state, under what authority, the Assistant Educational Officer compelled the appellants to repay the salary received by them. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent filed a statement, stating that though there was no stipulation in Ext.P5 for recovery of the salary paid to the appellants for the earlier spells of service, the Assistant Educational Officer, on finding that the approval granted being irregular, directed the appellants to repay the salary as a condition for approval of their appointments from 01.02.2006. We notice that without following the due procedure or taking recourse to proceedings under any statute, the salary paid to the appellants have been recovered from them. During the earlier spells of appointments, the appellants have actually worked. Their appointments were approved and they received salary also. Therefore, we find that there is no justification for recovering the amount paid to the appellants. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to repay the amount covered by Ext.P6 to the first appellant and the amount covered by Ext.P7, to the second appellant on receipt/production of a copy of this Judgment. If the Government have suffered any loss, this direction will not affect the powers, if any, of respondents 1 and 2 to proceed against the Manager of the School in accordance with law to recover any such loss from him.