IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 22897 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P. VINCENT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, MEHANICAL SUB DIVISION, CHALAKUDY, RESIDING AT KUTHOTTINGAL HOUSE, BEHIND RC CHURCH ROAD, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, MECHANICAL SUB DIVISION, CHALAKUDY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, DIVISION NO-1, ANGAMALY. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THRISOOR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI P. NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 22897 of 2008-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The substantial challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4 by which an amount of Rs.38,081/- described as excess salary paid, is ordered to be recovered from the petitioner in 24 instalments starting from July 2008 onwards. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prior to the issuance of Ext.P4, no notice was issued to him and the same prevented him from offering his explanation before the recovery is ordered. It is pointed out that there was nothing wrong in the fixation and the assertion made by the authorities concerned that salary paid in excess, cannot be justified. 3. Heard learned Govt. Pleader also. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. They are relying upon Ext.R1(a) to show that at the time of promotion, the petitioner had given an undertaking agreeing to refund the Government excess amount, if any, received by him due to fixation of his pay as per Ext.P1 order. 5. The petitioner contends that Ext.R1(a) cannot give any power to WPC 22897/2008 2 the Government to arbitrarily arrive at the amount that is sought to be recovered. It is also submitted that the interpretation placed by them on the Note to Rule 37 of Kerala Service Rules are not correct and if an opportunity is given to the petitioner, he will able to satisfy that the action taken is perfectly without any justification. 6. In that view of the matter, Ext.P4 will be treated as a notice. The petitioner is directed to file his explanation within one month from today. On receipt of the same, the first respondent will pass fresh orders within a further period of one month thereafter. Till final orders are passed, the interim order passed by this court on 29.7.2008 will continue to be in force. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/