IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20458 of 2008(I)
1. Y.MARYKUTTY, STAFF NURSE,
... Petitioner
2. P.VIJAYALAKSHMY, STAFF NURSE,
3. R.SREELATHAKUMARI, STAFF NURSE,
4. P.GEETHA, STAFF NURSE,
5. K.SHARMILA, STAFF NURSE,
6. P.R.JAYASREE, STAFF NURSE,
7. C.P.SHYLAJA, STAFF NURSE,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,
3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.BOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :14/07/2008
O R D E R
V. GIRI, J.
-------------------------------
WP(C).NO. 20458 of 2008
---------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered
against the petitioners in the light of the judgment of the
Division bench of this court in State of Kerala Vs. Ponnamma
reported in 2005(4) KLT 987. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that even if it is so, the respondents should
be restrained from effecting recovery of the amount already paid
to the petitioners. They refer to the judgment of the Division
Bench of this court in WA.No.2662/2007. I am unable to accept
the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The
Division Bench in WA.No.2662/2007 restrained the Government
from recovering the excess amount paid by the Government
essentially taking note of the fact that the proceedings for
recovery of the amounts have been initiated only after the
retirement of the petitioner therein, who retired as the
Headmaster of a Government Lower Primary School. Apparently,
if actual recovery was sought to be effected several years after
WPC.20458 /2008 2
the petitioner has retired, serious hardship will be caused to the
petitioner. The situation here is different. The petitioners are
still in service and recovery will obviously in instalments spread
over a period. Since the claim made by the petitioners is
squarely covered by the judgment of the Full Bench of this court,
I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders.
For all the reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. But it is
made clear that if the petitioners pray for easy instalments, such
instalment facility shall be afforded to them.
V. GIRI, JUDGE.
Pmn/ WPC.20458 /2008 3