IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP.No. 31756 of 2002(E) ----------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- E.A.USHA, W/O.K.D.BABUJI, AGED 54 YEARS, ASSISTANT FOREMAN (BINDING SECTION) GOVERNMENT PRESS, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PRINTING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PRINTING AND STATIONARY, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT PRESS, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.T. MUHAMOOD THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- OP.No. 31756 of 2002(E) -2- ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 53656/2002 & C.M.P. NO. 5240/2003 IN OP. NO. 31756/2002 DISMISSED 27/05/2011 SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn ...3/- OP.No. 31756 of 2002(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 22834/92/E6 DATED 11.8.1992 OF THE DIRECTOR OF PRINTING & STATIONERY, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 7492/2001/E2 DATED 5.9.2002 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION NO. 32636/2001/E6 DATED 8.10.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) : COPY OF THE ABOVE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 2.2.1994. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` O.P. No. 31756 of 2002 E ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The issue raised in the original petition is regarding the validity of audit objection evidenced by Ext.P2. 2. The petitioner was a Binder Grade-I in the Binding Section of the Printing Department. She was promoted as Assistant Foreman with effect from 19.08.1992, as per Ext.P1 order. Petitioner submits that, following the 1992 pay revision, she opted for fixation in the grade of Assistant Foreman, the benefit of which was given to her. Subsequently, audit objection has been raised as per Ext.P2 and `18,924/- is ordered to be recovered. 3. Petitioner submits that audit objection is unsustainable in view of clause 9 of Ext.R2(a), GO(P) 81/94 (5)/Fin dated 02.02.1994. It is her case that, when there are more than one promotion post, the employee can opt for the next immediate promotion post assumed, after 01.03.1992. It is stated that the next promotion post assumed by her is that of Assistant Foreman and, therefore, the fixation given to her is not liable to be disturbed. 4. However, counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent shows that the entry post in the binding section is Binder Grade-II and the promotion posts are that of Binder Grade-I, Binder Senior Grade, Assistant Foreman, Junior Foreman. It is stated that from the post of Binder Grade-I, petitioner was directly promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman and that in the process, petitioner's pay was firstly fixed in the intermediary post of Binder Senior Grade and then in the post of Assistant Foreman, extending the benefit of Rule 28A, Part I KSR. Therefore, according to the respondents, as far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner, having enjoyed the benefit of pay fixation in the cadre of Binder Senior Grade, is entitled to exercise option only to the scale applicable to that post and not to the post of Assistant Foreman. It is stated that therefore the audit objection is perfectly justified. 5. It is true that when there are more than one post, the employee is entitled to exercise option to the next promotion post assumed. In this case, although the petitioner was directly promoted from the post of Binder Grade I to the post of Assistant Foreman, without promotion to the post of Senior Grade Binder, fact remains that her pay was fixed in the cadre of Senior Grade Binder and she enjoyed the benefit of fixation under Rule 28A. If that be so, petitioner cannot contend that she did not enjoy the promotion in the post of Senior Grade Binder. Consequently, the option exercised by the petitioner in the scale of Assistant Foreman was erroneous and the audit objection does not call for any interference. 6. However, I cannot uphold the proposal for recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner, for the reason that the petitioner received the excess pay, based on a fixation of pay given by her superiors. Therefore, while I uphold the audit objection as per Ext.P2, I quash the proceedings of recovery of `18,924/- as proposed in Ext.P2. Original petition will stand disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/28.05 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ```````````````````````````````````````` O.P. No. 31756 of 2002 E ```````````````````````````````````````` J U D G M E N T 27th day of May, 2011