IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 1368 of 2009(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ T.P.SUJATHA,RETIRED REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICER,REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICE,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT "ARCHANA", 50/456 A MANIMALA CROSS ROAD,EDAPPALLY.P.O, KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,REP; BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER,PAY FIXATION, K.S.E.BOARD,VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,KSEB, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE,P.H.ROAD,KOCHI-18. ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1-3 SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.1368/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER E.B.5/GRADE PROMOTION/2000- 2001/774 DT 24.5.2000. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 22.11.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1368 OF 2009 (K) ===================== Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner joined Kerala State Electricity Board in 1978 as an LDC. In 1982, she was promoted as a Senior Assistant and in 1992, she was given first time bound higher grade. While continuing so, in a special recruitment conducted under Rule 17A of the General Rules, petitioner got herself selected as Senior Superintendent and was appointed to that post from 03/04/97. 2. Reckoning her service as Senior Assistant also, she was given second time bound higher grade w.e.f. 11/2/2000. She earned promotion as Accounts Officer in 2005 and was again promoted as Regional Audit Officer w.e.f. 18/1/2007. She was attaining the age of superannuation on 30/11/2008 and on the eve of it, she was issued Ext.P2 dated 22/11/2008 stating that the second time bound higher grade given to her on 11/2/2000 was erroneous in as much as her service as Senior Assistant could not have been reckoned. It is stated therefore that the second time bound higher grade granted was liable to be cancelled and on that basis she was called upon to remit Rs.2,05,985/- allegedly WPC 1368/09 :2 : received by her in excess of what is due. It is this order which is under challenge. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that she was entitled to be reckoned the entire service so long as she held lien for that post also. It is also contended relying on the judgment of the Division Bench in WA No.2662/07 that even if there was a mistake, recovery at this distance of time, especially after her retirement, is impermissible. It was then contended that at any rate, Ext.P2 was issued without notice to her and for that reason also Ext.P2 is bad. 4. Counsel for the Board contended that this is a case where a mistake has been committed and therefore, they are entitled to correct the said mistake. They also rely on the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.33028/03 in support of the contention that the amount could be recovered. 5. Both sides have thus attempted to substantiate their claim. 6. Irrespective of the contentions raised by both sides, I feel at any rate, if Ext.P2 is viewed as an order, the same is vitiated for violation of natural justice in as much as it has civil consequences and if so, it could not have been issued without notice to the petitioner. Apparently in order to salvage this situation, WPC 1368/09 :3 : respondents took up the position that Ext.P2 is not an order concluding the issue and recovery also has not been effected, but amount is only withheld. In such circumstances, it will be only appropriate that Ext.P2 be treated as a notice and the petitioner is allowed to file her objections in the matter. 7. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that Ext.P2 referred to above will be treated only as a notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the second time bound higher grade granted to her shall not be cancelled and why she shall not remit the amount mentioned therein. It is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to file her reply to Ext.P2 within 4 weeks from today and on receipt of which the 3rd respondent, who issued Ext.P2 will issue notice to her, hear hear and pass final orders in the matter. Since Ext.P2 is treated only as a notice, there is no necessity to stay the operation of Ext.P2. However, it is directed that if the amount due to petitioner is withheld, its further appropriation or release will depend upon the order that is to be passed pursuant to the hearing as directed above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp