Paulose T.Kunnath vs The State Of Kerala on 18 November, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36429 of 2005(J)


1. PAULOSE T.KUNNATH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE  STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT,

3. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,

4. THE PRINCIPAL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :18/11/2009

 O R D E R
                           S. SIRI JAGAN, J
                 ...............................................
                   W.P(C) No. 36429 of 2005
                .................................................
        Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioner’s pay was fixed in accordance with orders of pay

revision issued by the Government of Kerala in G.O.(P) No.

3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998. While doing so, petitioner’s prior

aided school service for the period from 16.7.1983 to 13.3.1986

was also taken into account as qualifying service for weightage.

Later, on the ground that the aided school service cannot be

counted a qualifying service for weightage, proceedings were

initiated to revise the fixation, by Ext.P1 dated 11.11.2002.

Petitioner’s representation in this regard has been rejected by

Ext.P3. Petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 and P3 seeking the

following reliefs:

“a) issue a writ of certiorari to call for all
records leading to Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 and to quash the
same;

b) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents 1 and 3 not to compel the petitioner to
remit any amount to them;

c) issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondent to fix the pay of the petitioner reckoning
the service of the petitioner from 16.7.83 to 13.3.86 as
qualifying service for weightage and fitment benefits;”

W.P(C) No. 36429 of 2005 -2-

2. The question as to whether aided school service can be

counted for weightage in pay fixation has been held against similar

petitioner in W.A. No. 288/2005. As such the petitioner is not

entitled to the reliefs ‘a’ and ‘c’. Petitioner submits that in so far as

the petitioner has not contributed to the wrong fixation, it is not

just and equitable to recover the excess pay drawn by the

petitioner. Such a relief can be granted to the petitioner only if

there is unduly long delay in detecting the mistake and taking steps

for rectifying the same. In fact while submitting option for revision

of pay the petitioner had also filed a declaration to the effect that if

any mistake occurs in the fixation, the petitioner would refund any

excess pay drawn. In any event the fixation was after 25.11.1998

and proceedings were initiated by Ext.P1 dated 11.11.2002, hardly

four years thereafter. That cannot be considered to be an unduly

long delay to prohibit the respondents from recovering the excess

pay received by the petitioner on wrong fixation of pay. Therefore,

the petitioner is not entitled to relief ‘b’ also.

Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs