IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 36429 of 2005(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PAULOSE T.KUNNATH, INSTRUCTOR IN HUMANITIES AND LANGUAGES, TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL, MULANTHURUTHY. BY ADV. MR.LEGY ABRAHAM MR.JOSWIN THAMBI KUNNATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT, TECHNICAL HIGHER SCHOOL, MULANTHURUTHY. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL, MULANTHURUTHY. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 36429 of 2005(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER NO.A/216/02/DATED 11.11.2002. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3.2.2003. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO. 16773/J3/2004/H.EDN.DATED 12.8.2005. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO. 3000/98/FIN DATED 25.11.98. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 36429 of 2005 ................................................. Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner’s pay was fixed in accordance with orders of pay revision issued by the Government of Kerala in G.O.(P) No. 3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998. While doing so, petitioner’s prior aided school service for the period from 16.7.1983 to 13.3.1986 was also taken into account as qualifying service for weightage. Later, on the ground that the aided school service cannot be counted a qualifying service for weightage, proceedings were initiated to revise the fixation, by Ext.P1 dated 11.11.2002. Petitioner’s representation in this regard has been rejected by Ext.P3. Petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 and P3 seeking the following reliefs: “a) issue a writ of certiorari to call for all records leading to Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 and to quash the same; b) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 3 not to compel the petitioner to remit any amount to them; c) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to fix the pay of the petitioner reckoning the service of the petitioner from 16.7.83 to 13.3.86 as qualifying service for weightage and fitment benefits;” W.P(C) No. 36429 of 2005 -2- 2. The question as to whether aided school service can be counted for weightage in pay fixation has been held against similar petitioner in W.A. No. 288/2005. As such the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs 'a' and 'c'. Petitioner submits that in so far as the petitioner has not contributed to the wrong fixation, it is not just and equitable to recover the excess pay drawn by the petitioner. Such a relief can be granted to the petitioner only if there is unduly long delay in detecting the mistake and taking steps for rectifying the same. In fact while submitting option for revision of pay the petitioner had also filed a declaration to the effect that if any mistake occurs in the fixation, the petitioner would refund any excess pay drawn. In any event the fixation was after 25.11.1998 and proceedings were initiated by Ext.P1 dated 11.11.2002, hardly four years thereafter. That cannot be considered to be an unduly long delay to prohibit the respondents from recovering the excess pay received by the petitioner on wrong fixation of pay. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to relief 'b' also. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs