Loading...

The Secretary To Government vs P.A.Ismail on 14 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
The Secretary To Government vs P.A.Ismail on 14 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1781 of 2004()


1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER,

                        Vs



1. P.A.ISMAIL S/O. P.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.ESM.KABEER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :14/07/2008

 O R D E R
            J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
                  -------------------------------
                 W.A.NO.1781 OF 2004 ()
                                &
              C.M.APPLN.NO.1958 OF 2004
                -----------------------------------
           Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008

                      J U D G M E N T

KOSHY,J.

For the reasons stated in the affidavit, delay is condoned.

Petitioner entered service as a P.D.teacher in

Government Lower Primary Girls School, Pathanamthitta.

His regular service started with effect from 31.7.1974.

Petitioner had provisional service of two years, two months

and nine days. Taking into account the provisional service, he

was granted annual increments as per order No.K.Dis.729/86

dated 10.2.1986, and by Ext.P1, his pay was fixed. After a

lapse of more than eight years, objections were raised and

petitioner was asked to repay the excess pay. The learned

Single Judge after considering the Government Order dated

10.2.1986 and also as per the decision in Hussain v. Kerala

W.A.NO.1781 OF 2004 ()
&
C.M.APPLN.NO.1958 OF 2004

2

Water Authority (1996 (2) KLT 555) held that petitioner is

entitled to increments taking into account of the provisional

service. We see no ground to interfere in the above. We also

note that he has exercised re-option as per Government Order

dated 5.2.1999 and he got the benefit of re-option from the

date of entitlement as held in the judgment in

O.P.No.8951/2002 and connected cases. Same view was also

accepted in State of Kerala and Others v. Lissy Joseph M.

(2006 (1) KLJ 566). The objection itself was raised after

eight years. In these circumstances, we fully agree with the

views of the learned Single Judge, and hence, this appeal is

dismissed.

J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
prp

W.A.NO.1781 OF 2004 ()
&
C.M.APPLN.NO.1958 OF 2004

3

J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.

——————————————————–

M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 ()

———————————————————

J U D G M E N T

———————————————————

26th May, 2008

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