IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16007 of 2004(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.VISWANATHAN, U.D. CLERK, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, NOW WORKING ON DEPUTATION AS SHOP MANAGER, MAVELI STORE, NANMINDA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, VYTHIRI, WAYANADU DISTRICT. 4. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPROATION (REGIONAL OFFICE), KOZHIKODE. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH, R4 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.16007 of 2004 (E) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was working as a Lower Division Clerk. While working in the Taluk Supply Office, Vythiri, his pay was refixed by Ext.P1 order and on that basis, the petitioner was receiving his pay. Subsequently, the petitioner got transferred to Kozhikkode. While so, the Taluk Supply Officer, Vythiri issued Ext.P2 communication referring to an audit objection regarding Ext.P1 pay fixation order issued to the petitioner. It was stated that an excess payment was made to the petitioner during the period from January 1993 to May 2002 and that the petitioner will have to remit an amount of Rs.16,500/-. Eventhough the petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation objecting to Ext.P2, there was no response. Subsequently, Ext.P4 notice dated 29/03/2004 was issued to the Regional Manager of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, to which establishment the petitioner was deputed in the meanwhile, calling upon the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.16,500/-. It was thereupon that this writ WP(C) No.16007/2004 -2- petition has been filed challenging Ext.P4. Though several contentions have been raised by the petitioner, in my view, for the only reason that recovery has been ordered long after payments were made to the petitioner and also taking into account the fact that the petitioner retired from service on 31/03/2010, Ext.P4 calling upon the petitioner to make remittance of Rs.16,500/- calls for interference. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P4. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg