Loading...
Responsive image

State Of Kerala Represented By vs P.T.Kurian on 16 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala Represented By vs P.T.Kurian on 16 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  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)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information