High Court Kerala High Court

B. Kumari Geetha vs The Principal on 13 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
B. Kumari Geetha vs The Principal on 13 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 36291 of 2002(U)


1. B. KUMARI GEETHA, W/O. K. MOHANA KUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. VOCATIONAL
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, VOCATIONAL

3. THE DIRECTOR, VOCATIONAL HIGHER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :13/11/2008

 O R D E R
                              S. Siri Jagan, J.
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                       O.P. No. 36291 of 2002
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
               Dated this, the 13th November, 2008.

                            J U D G M E N T

While working as HSA (Mathematics) at Government High

School, Koickal, Kollam, by Ext. P1 order dated 16-2-1996, the

petitioner was posted on deputation as VHSST (Mathematics) at

Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Vattiyoorkavu,

Trivandrum. The petitioner was thereafter transferred from there to

to VHSS, Eravipuram where she joined on 17-5-1996. Still thereafter,

by Ext. P2, the petitioner was appointed temporarily as HSST under

the Directorate of Higher Secondary Education. While working in the

Vocational Higher Secondary School, the petitioner was given a

special pay of Rs. 250/- in addition to her regular salary. By Ext. P3

dated 28-7-2000, the petitioner was intimated that as per audit

report, the petitioner is liable to refund an amount of Rs. 18,455/-

paid to her as special pay and D.A for the period she was working as

lecturer in Vocational Higher Secondary School. Again, by Ext. P4

order dated 4-9-2001, the Principal of Government Vocational Higher

Secondary School directed the petitioner to refund the amount. The

petitioner filed Ext. P5 representation challenging the recovery.

However, by Ext. P6 order, the Principal of Government Vocational

Higher Secondary School, Eravipuram intimated the petitioner that if

she does not repay the amount within seven days, the Principal would

be forced to report the matter to the Treasury Officer for recovery of

the amount from the petitioner’s salary. In the above circumstances,

the petitioner has filed this original petition challenging Exts.P 3, P4

and P6 for a declaration that the petitioner is not entitled to refund

the amount.

2. In the counter affidavit, the contention of the 3rd respondent

is that the special pay payable to deputationists was cancelled by G.O

(P) No. 220/96(80)/Fin dated 28-2-1996 (Pay Revision Order of 1992).

O.P. No. 36291/2002 -: 2 :-

According to the 3rd respondent , after coming into force of the Pay

Revision Order, deputationists are not eligible for special pay and that

is why the amount was sought to be recovered from the petitioner.

The petitioner would contend that in the Pay Revision Order, there is

no provision wherein special pay for Vocational Higher Secondary

School Lecturers on deputation has been cancelled and therefore the

proposed recovery is wrong.

3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

4. Along with the counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent has

produced Ext. R3(a) purported to be the Pay Revision Order relying

on which the amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioner.

But, only two pages of the order are produced, which do not contain

any reference to any special pay or withdrawal of special pay to

deputationists. Apart from the assertion of the petitioner that the Pay

Revision Order does not contain any provision for cancellation of the

special pay, nothing has been produced before me in support of the

same. As such, there is no material before me to decide the matter

one way or the other. In the above circumstances, the only course of

action open to me is to direct the 3rd respondent to decide the matter

after hearing the petitioner. Therefore, the original petition is

disposed of with the following directions:

The petitioner shall file a suitable representation along with a

certified copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent in the

matter. The 3rd respondent shall consider the same in the light of the

Pay Revision Order of 1992 and ascertain whether there is any

provision in the Pay Revision Order cancelling special pay granted to

deputationists working in Vocational Higher Secondary Schools. The

3rd respondent shall pass a speaking order after affording an

O.P. No. 36291/2002 -: 3 :-

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of the receipt

of the representation and the certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/