IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 8976 of 2004(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, HEADMASTER, CHERAPURAM NEW L.P. SCHOOL, P.O. CHERAPURAM, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU BY ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUNNUMMEL P.O., VATTOLY, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT), TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8976 of 2004 EXT.P1: COPY OF OPTION FORM COUNTERSIGNED BY R3 DTD 1.10.1996. EXT.P2: COPY OF G.O.(P)475/96/(97)/FIN. DTD 6.7.1996 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P3: COPY OF LETTER DT. 31.12.99 VIDE NO.B.3171/99 ISSUED BY R3. EXT.P4: COPY OF STATEMENT SHOWING THE FIXATION OF PAY ISSUED BY THE GOVT. EXT.P5: COPY OF OBJECTION RAISED BY R5 AGAINST PAY FIXATION OF THE PETITIOENR DTD 22.6.2000. EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER NO.B.1859/2000 IN SEPTEMBER 2000 ISSUED BY R3. EXT.P7: COPY OF LETTER DTD 3.5.2000 VIDE NO.C.4456/2000 ISSUED BY R3. EXT.P8: COPY OF ORDER NO.C.4456/01 DT.29.11.01 AND NO.MW2(1) 11924/200 DTD 17.11.2001 ISSUED BY R3. EXT.P9: COPY OF REQUEST DATED 19.9.2002 VIDE NO.C/4456/2000 SUBMITTED BY R3 TO THE HEADMASTER OF CNLPS. EXT.P10: COPY OF REQUEST DTD 8.5.2003 VIDE NO.C/4456/2000 SUBMITTED BY R3 TO THE HEADMASTER OF CNLPS. EXT.P11: COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT. 18.8.03 VIDE NO.C/ 4456/2000 SUBMITTED BY R3TO THE HEADMASTER OF CNLPS. EXT.P12: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 10.11.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R4. EXT.P13: COPY OF GPO NO.P-08/OR/G/66510817 DTD 18.4.2005 ISSUED BY R4. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.8976 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner entered service as an aided School Lower Primary School Assistant on 6.6.1968. He was promoted as Headmaster with effect from 1.6.1977. He completed 25 years of service on 5.6.1993. On completing 25 years, he became eligible for Selection Grade with effect from 6.6.1993. In the meanwhile, the Government issued pay revision orders with effect from 1.3.1992, consequent to which the petitioner submitted option to come over to the revised scale in the Selection Grade with effect from 1.7.1993. Later on, by Ext.P2, the Government granted opportunity to Government servants and aided school teachers to submit re-option for fixation of pay as per the pay revision order. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 re-option seeking to come over to the new scale with effect from 1.7.1996. By Ext.P3, the same was returned on the ground of some audit objection and stating that the same cannot be acted upon until the audit objection is cleared. By Ext.P5 audit objection, the W.P.(c)No.8976/2004 2 petitioner was told that the fixation of pay as per the original option with effect from 1.7.1993 itself is wrong. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P3 and P5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2005. As a result of the audit objection, the petitioner becomes liable to refund substantial amount received by him consequent to pay fixation. 2. The petitioner's contention is that it is not because of any fault of the petitioner that this imbroglio had resulted. The petitioner would also submit that in view of the decision of this Court in Narayanan V. State of Kerala [2008(3) KLT 188], the excess amount consequent upon the audit objection passed after a long time cannot be recovered. The petitioner submits that in so far as the confusion is not because of any fault of his, the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P12 petition before the 4th respondent. The petitioner submits that since the Accountant General is the appropriate person to decide the matter correctly, it is only in the fitness of things that the 4th respondent be directed to consider Ext.P12 and to pass orders regarding the question so as to give a quietus to W.P.(c)No.8976/2004 3 the whole issue. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I am also of the opinion that this matter being a technical question and the Accountant General being the expert on the subject, it is only appropriate that the Accountant General considers the matter and passes appropriate orders. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P12 and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall forward a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition to the 4th respondent for compliance. The balance retirement benefits due to the petitioner, if any, computed in accordance with the order to be passed by the Accountant General, shall be disbursed to him within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order from the Accountant General. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.8976/2004 4 S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.8976/2004 5