IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).NO. 10943 OF 2006(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, PLUMBER (HIGHER GRADE), P.H. SECTION, PURAMERI, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR), SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D'COUTH. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION (W.S.B) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, `JALA BHAVAN', THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H. DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE RESIDENT AUDIT OFFICER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH. R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN MANNALI, SC, KWA, SRI.J.KRISHNA KUMAR, SC, KWA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).NO. 10943 OF 2006(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22/03/2000. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) 1008/2002/WRD DATED 06/11/2002. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.93/01/LAD SWD DATED 27/05/1984. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05/12/2002. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PH. CIRCLE, KWA, MALAPARAMBA, CALICUT DATED 23/06/2004. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT NO.E1/AUDIT 2000 DATED 01/09/2004. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/07/2004. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 18204/2005-P OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 17/06/2005. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BEARING NO.KWA/JB/E3/100/2000 DATED 13/02/2006. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/10/2007 ISSUED FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT NO.E1/651/96. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/08/1985 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/11/2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 10943 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was originally employed as a SLR man- mazdoor in the Kerala Water Authority from 30.1.1976. He was later absorbed in the regular service with effect from 1.10.1977. Now proceedings have been initiated to recover alleged excess amounts paid to the petitioner towards service benefits on the ground that he was entitled to such regularization in service as a Plumber only with effect from 1.8.1986. Consequently, he has been directed to refund the excess pay received by him for the period from 1.10.1977 to 1.8.1984 amounting to Rs. 1,09,590/-. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 order passed in this regard, seeking the following reliefs: “i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P6 order of recovery and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the same; ii) cal for the records leading to Ext.P9 order of the 2nd respondent and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the same; iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to declare that the petitioner is entitled for arrears with effect from 1.4.1979 to 6.11.2001 attached to the post of Plumber on the basis of Ext.P2 order issued by the Government; iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to declare that the petitioner's promotion in the category of N.M.R. Plumber with effect from 1.10.197 is correct and legal.” 2. Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority vehemently W.P(C) No. 10943 of 2006 -: 2 :- opposes the prayers in this writ petition. According to him, the petitioner did not have the qualifications to be absorbed as Plumber with effect from 1.10.1977. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to refund the excess pay, is the contention raised. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The respondents have no case that if at all there is a mistake, the petitioner has contributed to that mistake in fixation 1.10.1977 as the date of his regularization in service. I am of opinion that it is totally unjust to direct such low paid employees to refund to the tune of Rs.1,09,590/-, especially when the petitioner has not contributed to the alleged mistake. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to permit the respondents to recover the amount from the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P9 order is quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is not liable to refund the said amount Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/