IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 14690 of 2006(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T. UNNIKRISHNAN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS GENERAL EXTENSION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, THRITHALA P.O., KUTTANAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. S. DANAM, PRESENTLY WORKING AS GENERAL EXTENSION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. ABDUL RAHIMAN N.K., PRESENTLY WORKING AS GENERAL EXTENSION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, PERUMPADAPPU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. K. GOPALAKRISHNAN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS GENERAL EXTENSION OFFICER (HOUSING ) GR.II, OFFICE OF THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, THANUR. 5. P.R. MOHANAN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS GENERAL EXTENSION OFFICER (HOUSING) GR.II, OFFICE OF THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, THOZHUVANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT), THRISSUR. 2. THE ACCOUNTNAT GENERAL (AUDIT), KOZHIKODE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THRITHALA. 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TIRUR. 8. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PERUMBADAPPA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 9. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 10. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KUTTIPPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 11. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 TO R11 BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 3 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CLARIFICATION DATED 22.12.2001 ISSUED BY R11 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.2.2000 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF R3 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.5.2003 ISSUED BY R4 TO 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.8.2003 ISSUED BY R4 TO 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.5.2003 ISSUED BY R4 TO 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.5.2003 ISSUED BY R4 TO 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.5.2003 ISSUED BY R4 TO 5TH PETITIONER. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.6.2003 ISSUED BY R10 TO 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.8.2003 ISSUED BY R7 TO 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 3.6.2003 ISSUED BY R10 TO 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION IN THE CASE OF 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.1.2006 ISSUED BY R3 TO ALL ASST. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 14690 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge is against proposal to recover excess salary drawn by the petitioners on account of higher grade granted to them without noticing the effective date on which higher grade was made applicable. Until G.O.P.No. 3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998, higher grade was available in the first stage on completion of 10 years of service. Through another Government order, the above G.O. was made effective from 1.11.1998. In other words, those who have not completed 10 years of service as on 31.10.1998, were not entitled to higher grade. Petitioners completed 10 years of service in the first promotion post only on 20.8.1998 is the admitted position. However, they were given the benefit of G.O.P. No. 3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998 with effect from 1.3.1997. Salaries were being paid without noticing the mistake and after the Accountant General pointed out the mistake, Ext.P12 was consequently issued to correct the mistake and to recover the excess salary drawn by the petitioners. It is against 2 this proceedings that petitioners have approached this Court. 2. I heard counsel appearing for the petitioners and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Notifications above referred are not under challenge and there is no dispute on the factual position that petitioners have not completed 10 years of service as on 1.3.1997 to make them eligible for the benefit of higher grade. Since all of them completed 10 years of service only on 20.8.1998 in the higher grade, they were wrongly given revised pay with effect from 1.3.1997. In the circumstances I find no justification to interfere with the recovery proposed to be made vide Ext.P12. W.P. is accordingly dismissed. However, I direct respondents not to recover any interest from the petitioners, but limit the recovery to the extent of actual excess drawn by them. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3