LAWS(KER)-2009-7-6

VENUGOPAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On July 01, 2009
VENUGOPAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to review the judgment dated 14/06/2006 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in OP 14285/2002.

(2.) We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed as Third Grade Overseer in the Public Works Department on 15/05/1987 pursuant to the advise dated 03/02/1987 of the Kerala Public Service Commission. Prior to that, on the advice of the employment exchange, the petitioner was working as a Works Superintendent in the Public Health Engineering Department on a provisional basis from 07/09/1981. Consequent on the establishment of the Kerala Water Authority with effect from 01/04/1984 replacing the Public Health Engineering Department, the petitioner continued in the said provisional service in the Kerala Water Authority until he entered Government service as Third Grade Overseer in the Public Works Department on 15/05/1987 as aforesaid. Therefore, his provisional service under the Kerala Water Authority was not liable to be counted for the purpose of increments or higher grade in view of Note 2 to Rule 28 of Part I, KSR. Consequently, the increments granted to him by the departmental authority (Asst. Executive Engineer, KIP (MCS) Sub Division No. 24 Noornad) as per Ext. P1 order dated 24/01/1989 by recourse to Government decision No. 2 under Rule 33 of Part I KSR, which was inapplicable to the petitioner and the higher grade sanctioned as per Ext. P3 and P4 orders, were impermissible in law. If so, Ext. P7 Audit Enquiry Report (of the Audit Party of the Accountant General conducting the audit in the year, 2001) objecting to Ext. P1 order and refixing the pay admissible to the petitioner for the period from May 1987 to September 2001 and directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 97631/- drawn by the petitioner in excess of the pay and allowances, was perfectly in order. We do not find any good ground to review that part of the judgment dated 14/06/2006 by the Division Bench upholding Ext. P7 Audit Enquiry Report.