IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 29875 of 2004(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.N.LAKSHMI, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. V.R.GOPALAN, P.D.TEACHER, GOVERNMENT NEW L.P.SCHOOL KUDAYATHOOR, KUDAYATHOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.R.SHYAM KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, ARAKULAM, ARAKULAM P.O., THODUPUZHA. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA P.O. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY (GENERAL EDUCATION) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -1. 4. THE HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT NEW L.P.SCHOOL KUDAYATHOOR, KUDAYATHOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29875 of 2004 APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) 20/81/G.EDN/DTD 30.1.1981. EXT.P2: COPY OF GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR/LETTER NO.69763/J1/183/ G.EDN/DATED 11/7/1984. EXT.P3: COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 3.11.2001 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF LETTER DTD 7/9/02 ISSUED BY R2 REJECTING REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF ORDER DATED 5/12/2002 AND TRUE COPY OF APPENDIX SENT ALONG WITH THE SAID ORDER. EXT.P6: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD 16.8.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD 15.4.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R3. EXT.P8: COPY OF R1'S LETTER DATED 5/1/2004 ADDRESSED TO R4. EXT.P9: COPY OF R1'S LETTER DATED 18/3/2004 ADDRESSED TO R4. EXT.P10: COPY OF ORDER OF R3 DTD 31.7.2004. EXT.P11: COPY OF R1'S ORDER DTD 16.6.2004. EXT.P12: COPY OF R1'S CERTIFICATE DTD 16.6.2004. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.29875 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a member of a Scheduled Caste. She was appointed as an untrained P.D. Teacher by resort to special recruitment on 13.6.1975. On 31.3.1976 she was relieved from service and again appointed on 1.6.1976 on regular basis. She was later deputed for obtaining TTC qualification, which she obtained on 30.8.1979. Thereafter applying Ext.P1 Government Order, she was granted increment etc from 31.8.1979 onwards with notional fixation for the prior untrained service. She had been regularly receiving increment every month. Subsequently by Ext.P3 dated 3.11.2001, she was given increment, grade etc. taking into account her service for the period from 13.6.1975 to 31.3.1976 also. By Ext.P3 she was directed to offer her explanation as to why the excess amount received by her as increment taking into account her service for the period from 13.6.1975 to 31.3.1976 should not be recovered from her. By Ext.P4 the same was confirmed and ultimately by Ext.P5 order, W.P.(c)No.29875/04 2 an amount of Rs.1,19,765/- was fixed as the amount to be refunded by the petitioner which was followed up with Exts.P10, P11 and P12 confirming the demand. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P4, P5, P10, P11 and P12 in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, she was granted the increment relying on Ext.P1 Government Order, which permits granting of such increment and she is sought to be denied that increment on the basis of Ext.P2 circular of the Government applicable to persons appointed on payment of stipend under the Half A Million Job Programme, which is not applicable to her. She also raises a contention that it is totally unjust to recover such huge amount after a period of more than 20 years. 2. The learned Government pleader submits that as is clear from Exts.P6 and P7, admittedly the petitioner was appointed as an Apprentice and since Apprentices are appointed on payment of stipend, Ext.P2 is applicable and therefore the period from 13.6.1975 to 31.3.1976 could not have been considered for the purpose of increment and fixation of higher grade. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. In W.P.(c)No.29875/04 3 Ext.P1 it is specifically stated as follows: “-------------But as per the G.O. read as 2nd paper above Government have clarified that notional increments with monetary benefits from the date of acquiring qualification will be granted to Government School Teachers and in the case of Aided School Teachers their first increment will be granted only after satisfactory completing the probation period. As per the rule of the G.O. read as 3rd paper above, this concession has been denied to the Government School Teachers. xxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Untrained teachers appointed in Government Schools on or after 26-2-1965 and who are in receipt of minimum of the respective scales of pay plus allowances admissible will be given notional increment reckoning their untrained service with monetary benefit from the date of acquiring training qualification. xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx” Going by those provisions, clearly, the petitioner is entitled to compute the period from 13.6.75 to 31.3.76 also for the purpose of increment. Ext.P2 would be applicable to the petitioner only if she was appointed as an Apprentice under the Half A Million Jobs Programme on stipend. Of course in Exts.P6 and P7, the petitioner states that she was appointed as an Apprentice P.D. Teacher on 13.6.1975. But she specifically states that she was paid the pay of Rs.235/- plus allowances in the existing scale of pay of Rs.235-395. She also specifically states that she was not appointed under the Half A Million Job W.P.(c)No.29875/04 4 Programme. The Government Pleader could not controvert these averments by any material on record. Therefore clearly Ext.P2 is not applicable to the petitioner. That being so, the fixation of liability based on Ext.P2 is clearly unsustainable. In any event, it would be totally unjust to mulct a poor P.D. Teacher that too a Scheduled Caste member with liability to pay the huge sum of Rs.1,19,765/- allegedly on the basis of an alleged mistake committed as early s in 1979, not by the petitioner but by the Department. For all these reasons, Exts.P4, P5, P10, P11 and P12 are quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is not liable to refund the said amount demanded by the impugned orders. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.29875/04 5