IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 17453 of 2006(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.T. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. THAYI, AGED 56 YEARS, MATTAPPILLI HOUSE, VI/216 COURT SIDE ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA-680 121, (EX-METER INSPECTOR, P.H.SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, IRINJALAKUDA). BY ADV. SRI.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.K.KRISHNANKUTTY NAYAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC, KWA FOR R2 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 17453/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt) NO.4338/88/LAD DATED 29.12.1988 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.741/B3/97/IRD DATED 14.8.1998 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P3 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt) NO.753/99/IRD DATED 14.6.1999 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KWA/PHD/IJK/E1-14/80 VOL.IV DATED 27.7.1999. EXT.P5 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RAO11/KWA/P.FXN/52/643 DATED 28.2.2000 OF THE RESIDENT AUDIT OFFICER. EXT.P6 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.1.2006 IN O.P.NO.13148/2000. EXT.P7 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.2.2006 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.4050/E5/2000/JB/KWA DATED 24.3.2006 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.5.2002 IN OP NO.3655/2001. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R1(a) – LETTER NO.KWA/JB/E1/17492/96 DATED 14.10.1996. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 17453 OF 2006-C ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner was a Meter Inspector in the Kerala Water Authority. He was appointed as Meter Reader on the advice of the P.S.C., on 9.2.1976. He was granted the first higher grade with effect from 1.7.1986 and the second higher grade with effect from 1.10.1994. The above second higher grade was granted pursuant to Ext.P1 order of the Government of Kerala. The Government issued Ext.P2 clarification, stating that the second higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.1050-2000, as per the 1983 pay revision, can be granted in the corresponding scale of pay, as per the 1988 and 1992 pay revisions. Later, the Government issued Ext.P3 clarification on 14.6.1999, stating that the benefit of Ext.P2 will be applicable only to those persons who were in service as on 27.11.1986. The petitioner submits, subsequent to his promotion as Meter Inspector, he was granted the revised scale of pay of Rs.2185-3440 with effect from 1.10.1994 for eighteen years' service in the cadre of Meter Reader, as per Ext.P4 order dated WPC 17453/06 2 27.7.1999. Since he was already drawing the scale of pay of Meter Inspector, no monetary benefit was granted to him. While so, the Resident Audit Officer issued Ext.P5 communication, stating that the petitioner was granted non-admissible scales of pay as per the 1992 and 1997 pay revisions. The pay scale corresponding to the scale of pay of Rs.1050-2000 was Rs.1760-3050, as per the 1992 pay revision and Rs.5635-9035, as per the 1997 pay revision. But, the petitioner was granted the scales of pay of Rs.2185-3440 and Rs.6935-11460. So, by Ext.P5 communication, the said officer directed recovery of an amount of Rs.64,448/- paid to him in excess between 1.10.1994 and 30.11.1999. When the Water Authority took action pursuant to Ext.P5, the petitioner challenged the same before this Court and this Court by Ext.P6 judgment, directed the Water Authority to hear the petitioner and take a decision on his grievance. Pursuant to that the petitioner filed Ext.P7 representation before the 2nd respondent herein. The said representation was heard and rejected by Ext.P8 communication dated 24.3.2006. This writ petition was filed, challenging Ext.P8 and also seeking consequential reliefs. WPC 17453/06 3 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the scale of pay is granted and even if subsequently it is found to be erroneous, the excess amount paid cannot be recovered. In support of that submission, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Narayanan v. State of Kerala [2008(3) KLT 188]. The learned counsel for the Water Authority submitted that it was a case where inordinate delay was there from the part of the competent authority to recover the excess payment made. The decision was rendered on the facts of that case. In the present case, there is no delay and therefore, the recovery is justified. 3. Going by the facts of the case, I feel that this is not a case where there is inordinate delay in recovering the excess salary paid. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner therein was granted the benefit of pay of Headmaster on completion of 15 years' continuous service, taking into account his prior service in the aided school also, with effect from 1.8.1989. In that case the audit objection was made after the lapse of ten years. In this case, I find considerable force in the submission of the learned WPC 17453/06 4 standing counsel for the Water Authority that there is not inordinate delay in taking action for recovering the excess amount paid to the petitioner between 1994 and 1999. Action was taken in 2000. So, I think the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Santhakumari v. State of Kerala [2005(4) KLT 649] will be applicable to this case. Public money has been wrongly paid. The person who received it is not entitled to keep it. He has to repay it on demand, subject to the rules of natural justice. In this case, the petitioner's case has been considered by the Water Authority, as directed by this Court, with notice to him. Thereafter, the impugned communication Ext,.P8 was issued. So, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 7th October, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/