IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30090 of 2006(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P. ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.P. MOIDEEN, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (URDU) DARUL ULOOM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THOOTHA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.K.E.HAMZA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE HEADMASTER, DARUL ULOOM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THOOTHA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.NOBLE MATHEW. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 30090 of 2006(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.10/81/EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.134/86/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.480/89/FIN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.57/91/(89)/FIN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.347/2000/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.938/2001/FIN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE OBJECTION. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 15782/2003-D. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SPL.CELL (HQ)II/IV/13-3245/211 OF THE ACCT. GENERAL. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE DY. DIRECTOR OF EDN. EXT.P11 COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.296/2006/FIN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 30090 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T After putting in service as a primary teacher, the petitioner was appointed as a High School Assistant on 15.7.1996. On completion of 18 years of service, the petitioner was granted senior grade in the primary cadre with effect from 18.4.1999. This fixation was objected to by the Accountant General and recovery of the alleged excess amount was ordered. The petitioner challenged the same by filing W.P. (C).No. 15782/2003, in which, by Ext.P8 judgment, this Court quashed the audit objection. Pursuant to the same, the audit objection was dropped by Ext.P9 dated 18.7.2005. But, by Ext.P10, the Deputy Director of Education, directed the headmaster of the school to re-fix the pay of the petitioner as on 1.7.1999 in accordance with G.O(P) No.296/2006/Fin. dated 14.7.2006. Ext.P10 is under challenge. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs; “(a) call for the records relating to Exhibit P-10 and quash the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. (b) declare that the grant of Senior grade with effect from 1.11.1999 in the Primary Cadre to the petitioner reckoning the Primary service is valid and legal.” The very same objection, which had been quashed by Ext.P8 judgment, has again been given effect to, which is illegal and unsustainable, is the contention of the petitioner. w.p.c.30090/06 - : 2 :- 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein they would seek to sustain Ext.P10 on the ground that when a primary teacher Garde I is promoted as H.S.A, he will get one 28 A fixation at the time of promotion and since primary teacher Grade I and High School Assistant Grade II are having different scales of pay and also such teacher already availed of a 28 A fixation on promotion as H.S.A, the benefit of reckoning primary school service for higher grade in the post of High School Assistant was withdrawn. The petitioner would dispute the correctness of the contention. I am of opinion that since the issue is covered by Ext.P8 judgment, the respondents cannot seek re-fixaiton of the petitioner's pay on the same objection, that too, on the basis of a government order issued subsequently, especially when the very same audit objection had already been dropped by the Accountant General pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment. In the above circumstances, Ext.P10 would not survive. Accordingly, Ext.P10 is quashed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.30090/06 - : 3 :-