IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30929 of 2007(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.T.KURIAKOSE, RETIRED PERSONAL ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (RESIDING AT CHIRAYIL HOUSE, PADINJAREKARA P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.) BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, (K.S.E.B. IN SHORT), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M.), K.S.E.B., VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R.1,2 SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R.1,2 SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 30929/2007. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PAY FIXATION STATEMENT DATED 23.2.2001. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY R2 DATED 29.4.2002. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12.8.2005 IN O.P.NO. 16266/2002. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. LA(S) IV/9269/2002 DATED 24.9.2007 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION RAISED BY INTERNAL AUDITOR IN RESPECT OF A.R.SIURESH DATED 15.5.2002. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF PENSION AUTHORIZATION ORDER IN RESPECT OF A.R. SURESH DATED 30.9.2002. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF PAY FIXATION ORDER WITH EFFECT FROM 1.7.1998 IN RESPECT OF A.R. SURESH. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER B.O.NO. 1417/92 DATED 13.8.1992. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: -------------------------------------- EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF LONG TERM SETTLEMENT 1990. EXT.R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE B.O. DATED 1.6.1998. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 30929 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 18th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired from the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board as a Personal Assistant on 31.1.2002. An amount of Rs. 40339/- was recovered from the DCRG of the petitioner as excess pay and allowance drawn during the period from 13.8.1992 to 30-6-1998 on account of wrong fixation of pay. The petitioner filed O.P.No. 16266/2002 in respect thereof and obtained Ext.P3 judgment for reconsideration of the issue. Pursuant to the same, the Board passed Ext.P4 order rejecting the contentions of the petitioner. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext.P2 order fixing the extent of liability of Rs. 40,339/- and recovering the same from the DCRG of the petitioner; ii. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext.P4 order No. LA(S) IV/9269/2002 dated 24.9.2007 as it is illegal and void; iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the first respondent to revise Ext.P2 pension payment order of the petitioner in accordance with Ext.P5 to P7 which is in the name of A.R. Suresh who was a colleague of the petitioner; iv. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to pay the terminal benefits and revised DCRG to the petitioner as in the scale of pay ordered to be given to A.R.Suresh by Ext.P5 to P7 orders. W.P(C) No. 30929 of 2007 -: 2 :- v. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2nd respondent to refund the amount recovered from the DCRG of the petitioner and also to pass fresh orders revising the pension and other terminal benefits due to the petitioner.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Board sustaining the amount. 3. As far as recovery of the excess pay is concerned, the petitioner does not now dispute that the excess pay is liable to recovered from him as a liability in the sense that there was actually wrong fixation of pay on which account the petitioner has received excess pay. But, he raises a contention that his fixation of pay is wrong for another reason insofar as, as is clear from Exts. P1 and P7, a similarly placed person has been given a higher basic pay in the same scale of pay, than the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is entitled to the same pay as that of the person in respect of whom Ext.P7 fixation has been made. I am of opinion that that issue cannot be raked up by the petitioner now insofar as the petitioner does not dispute the validity of the recovery of the excess pay. Although the petitioner would contend that in Ext.P3 judgment, he had raised this contention, I am of opinion that that contention is in relation to the pay fixation for the purpose of excess pay and not a W.P(C) No. 30929 of 2007 -: 3 :- pay fixation relation to a third person involved in Ext.P7 pay fixation. Even if the petitioner's contention is correct in respect of Ext.P7 compared to Ext.P1 fixation of pay of the petitioner, that issue cannot be raked up by the petitioner at this point of time insofar as that was not an issue raised by the petitioner in Ext.P3 judgment. The raising of that issue is also hopelessly belated. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/