IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 29584 of 2007(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ----------------- 1. JAYA P.NAIR, D.T.P.OPERATOR, STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GIREENDRA KUMAR.V, D.T.P.OPERATOR, STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,SC,STATE LANG.INS FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29584/2007 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER No. E1/1045/2003/SIL DATED 8.5.2003 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E1/1662/2002/SIL DATED 25.6.2003 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT. P3 : COPY OF the G.O. (Rt) No. 349/03/CAD DATED 29.8.2003. EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER No. E1/1662/2002/SIL DATED 15.12.2003 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER No. E1/1662/2002/SIL DATED 27.11.2003 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT. P6 : COPY OF the GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. 1856/C1/04/CAD DATED 22.11.2004 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P7 : COPY OF THE ORDER No. E1/1703/99/SIL DATED 2.3.2006 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P8 : COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER No. 2037/C1/06/CAD DATED 25.4.2006 ADDRESSED TO THE FINANCE ASSISTANT OF THE INSTITUTE. EXT. P9 : COPY OF the GOVT. LETTER No. 2658/C1/06/CAD DATED 25.11.2006. EXT. P10 : COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED ORDER No. EVEN/2407/2004/SIL DATED 17.1.2007. EXT. P11 : COPY OF the PETITIONERS SUBMITTED REPRESENTATION DATED 9.5.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA. EXT. P12 : COPY OF the 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED ORDER No.B/146/2007/SIL DATED 25.1.2007. EXT. P13 : COPY OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P14 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. WP(C).No. 29584/2007 EXT. P15 : COPY OF the JUDGMENT DATED 20.2.2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) No. 5548/2007. EXT. P16 : COPY OF the G.O.(Rt) No. 456/07/CAD DATED 20.8.2007. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).29584/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners are D.T.P Operators in the State Institute of Languages and their appointment was on a contract basis, which was later made permanent and the same was ratified by the Government under Ext.P3 order. They were placed on a regular scale of pay as per Ext.P4 with effect from the date of their permanent appointment. But by Ext.P7, the pay fixed was sought to be revised. This ultimately led to Ext.P12 order in which, the Institute had taken a decision to recover the excess amount drawn by the petitioners. Ultimately, pursuant to a direction issued by this Court, Government considered the issue and passed Ext.P16 order, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit and paragraph 6 of the same reads as follows:- W.P.(C).29584/2007 2 It is submitted that the contention of the petitioners in paragraph 22 of the Writ petition and Ground 5 of the Grounds that the petitioners were not granted any amount by way of increment for the period from 5.6.1997 to 8.5.2003 is correct. There is no excess pay of salary. The apprehension of the petitioners that there will be recovery is unwarranted. The recovery ordered under Ext.P12, was in compliance of the direction in Ext.P15 judgment. Following Ext.P16 the second respondent Institute has issued fresh proceedings fixing the scale of pay. As per the same there is no excess pay. Therefore, there is no reasons for the apprehension of the petitioners that recovery will be effected from them. 3. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents, there will be no recovery from the petitioners. Following Ext.P16, second respondent has issued fresh proceedings fixing the scale of pay and as per the same, there is no excess pay drawn by the petitioners. No further issue W.P.(C).29584/2007 3 survives in the writ petition. Accordingly the same is closed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs