IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 168 of 2007(T) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.A.SANTHAKUMARI, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT (RETD.), HAMADANIYA U.P. SCHOOL, P.O.AZHIKODE- 680 666, KODUNGALLUR (RESIDING AT KONETHAZHATH HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD, ERNAKULAM- 682 504). BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, ADV. SRI.K.E.HAMZA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANI FOR R1 TO R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.168/2007-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE FORM OF EXERCISING OPTION DTD. 19/04/1999. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY DTD. 27/04/1999. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E3-27352/04 OF THE DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION DTD. 25/01/2005. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.A. NO.2293/2002 DTD. 25/09/2002. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE G.O. (P). NO. 206/2003/FIN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 05/04/2003. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.A. NO. 1441/2004 DTD. 25/08/2005. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. L. DIS. D/4415/05OF THE ASST. EDL. OFFICER DTD. 21/01/2006. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 1997 (1) K.L.T. 417 DTD. 15/01/1997. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE G.O. (RT.) NO. 4907/06/ G. EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 13/11/2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 168 OF 2007 T = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of October 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has retired as Headmistress on 31.3.2005. What is under challenge is Ext. P9 by which the recovery effected from her DCRG has been affirmed by the Government. 2. It is seen from Ext. P9 that an excess amount of Rs. 13,812/- was paid to the petitioner due to irregular pay fixation done following the 1997 Pay Revision on the basis of the option exercised by her with effect from 1.9.1998. The contention now raised is that payments made, even if erroneous, cannot be recovered after a long delay, and this is relying on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Narayanan v. State of Kerala {2008 (3) KLT 188}. 2. True, in that judgment, this Court held that the excess amount mistakenly paid by the Government should not be recovered, from the retiral benefit after a long period of time. But W.P.(C) No. 168 OF 2007 -2- on facts, it can be seen that that was a case where amount was not recovered and when attempt was made to recover, the writ petition was filed and this Court prevented recovery due to long lapse of time. However, in this case, as can be seen from facts, soon after the retirement of the petitioner, amount has already been recovered. If that be so, the principle laid down in the judgment cannot be made applicable. Further if as a matter of fact, the payment was made, following the 1997 pay revision and recovery has been effected in 2005 on the retirement of the petitioner, there is also no inordinate delay to apply the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case referred to above. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-