IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24239 of 2005(I)
1. M.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, "BALU VIHAR",
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECERETARY,
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
3. DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,
4. CITY RATIONING OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.ANIL KUMAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :13/01/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).24239/2005
--------------------
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was working as a Rationing Inspector.
He joined service in the Revenue Department on
15.9.1976 and later, as Lower Division Clerk in the
Civil Supplies Department on 26.7.1983. Petitioner
was promoted as Upper Division Clerk with effect from
6.1.1990. While so, he was granted a time bound
higher grade. Petitioner’s pay was fixed in the scale
of pay of UDC with effect from 6.1.1990. As the scale
of pay of UDC was revised to Rs.1200-2040 with
effect from 1.3.1992, petitioner opted for a revised
scale with effect from 1.3.1992. But later, when he
was granted time bound higher grade in the scale of
pay of Rs.1400-2300/- with effect from 15.9.1996, his
pay was accordingly fixed after giving him the benefit
of 20 years’ time bound higher grade. 23 years’ time
bound higher grade was granted to the petitioner with
effect from 15.9.1996. Later, an Audit party had
scrutinized the petitioner’s scale of pay with effect
W.P.(C).24239/2005
2
from 6.1.1990 and objected to the same on the ground
that the petitioner had opted for revised scale with effect
from 1.3.1992 and cannot therefore, re-opt with effect
from 15.9.1996, merely on the ground that he had
completed 20 years of service and was entitled to the
IInd time bound higher grade with effect from the said
date. It is not disputed that the petitioner’s pay was
erroneously fixed as well. He has service as an Upper
Division Clerk and as a matter of fact, petitioner had
opted for fixation of pay with effect from 1.3.1992 and
therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was
unaware of the error in the fixation of pay. Steps taken
by the respondents are only steps taken consequent
upon the admitted error having been committed.
Erroneous fixation of pay was admitted by the
petitioner even in Ext.P2. In these circumstances, a
direction for refund of the excess pay cannot really be
faulted with.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ
petition and the same is dismissed. But since the
W.P.(C).24239/2005
3
petitioner had retired from service, he must be given an
opportunity to refund the excess amount in 36 equal
monthly instalments.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs