IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 467 of 2007(B)
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Petitioner
2. THE AUDIT & ACCOUNTS GENERAL OF KERALA,
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
Vs
1. P.T.KURIAN, TEACHER, ST.MARY'S HIGH
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :16/12/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A. No.467 of 2007
------------------------------
Dated this, the 16th day of December, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellants are the respondents in the Original
Petition. The Original Petition was filed by the respondent
challenging Ext.P2 audit objection. The brief facts of the case
are the following:-
The respondent was a teacher in the St.Mary’s High
School, Kindangoor. Before joining the said school, he has
worked in Government High School, Rajakumari, as a
provisional hand, from 9.10.1974 to 25.3.1975. He has
continuous service in the present school from 1.6.1977. He
was granted 20 years’ Higher Grade with effect from 4.6.1996.
Later, taking into account the provisional service rendered by
him in the Government school, the date of grant of 20 years’
Higher Grade was pre-dated to 13.12.1995. Subsequently, it
was found to be irregular. The aforementioned benefit was
WA No.467 of 2007
– 2 –
granted to him on 29.12.1998. The audit objection was
raised against the same, as per Ext.P2, which was forwarded
to the Headmaster of the respondent’s school on 21.11.2000.
It means, action was taken within two years of the
commission of the irregularity. After filing representations
against Ext.P2, the present Original Petition was filed by the
respondent herein. The learned Single Judge found that the
objection taken in Ext.P2 is valid, but further held that the
attempt to make recovery of excess amount paid to the
respondent herein is invalid. Feeling aggrieved by the said
finding of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is preferred by
the respondents in the Original Petition.
2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. In
this case, we notice that the respondent is a teacher working
in a High School. The steps for recovery of excess amount
paid were taken within two years of payment. That means,
there was not much delay in taking action. In view of the
above facts, we find nothing wrong with the action of the
WA No.467 of 2007
– 3 –
appellants in taking steps to recover the excess amount paid
to the respondent. This view, taken by us, is in tune with the
principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in
Santhakumari v. State of Kerala, 2005 (4) KLT 649.
In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed, the
judgment under appeal is reversed and the Original Petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.
Sd/-
P. Bhavadasan,
Judge.
DK.
(True copy)
