IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 WA.No.255 of 2006 ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP.18710/1997 Dated 09/09/2005 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN THE O.P. -------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (KERALA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE O.P. ---------------------------------------------- M.YUNUS KUNJU, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU, NAVAS MANZIL, VALATHUNGAL P.O., ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM-18. ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. B. KOSHY & K. P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. A. No.255 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy, J Writ petitioner/respondent retired from service as Deputy Tahsildar with effect from 31/08/97. While the petitioner was holding the post of Village Officer he was granted higher pay on completion of 20 years of service. Since he was not qualified to be promoted as Head Clerk/Revenue Inspector, he was allowed intermediary scale of pay of Rs.1000-1710. He was later promoted as Head Clerk/Revenue Inspector in the scale of pay of Rs.1050-1830 with effect from 01/09/1990. It was found that he was eligible for fixation with reference to the pay which he would have drawn in the lower post, but for assignment of any higher grade. W. A. No.255 of 2006 -2- Later, much after his date of promotion, it was found that the fixation of pay done on promotion as Head Clerk was not in order and steps were taken to recover the excess amount from his salary. That was done on the basis of audit objection. The learned Single Judge found that even though re-fixation was correct, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the recovery of excess pay was not warranted. In this connection, we also refer to the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in Aleyamma Varghese v. Secretary, General Education Department (2007(3) KLT 700 SC). We fully agree with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are not reiterating the same. We see no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge. Appeal fails and is dismissed W. A. No.255 of 2006 -3- accordingly. J. B. KOSHY JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-