Kerala High Court
Saramu.K.Paul vs State Of Kerala on 5 April, 2024
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 20042 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
SARAMU.K.PAUL,
AGED 49 YEARS
LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, KANJIRAMUKKU M.G.
SCHOOL, KANJIRAMUKKU, KUNNAMKULAM SUB EDUCATIONAL
DISTRICT, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
S.M.PRASANTH
G.RENJITH
ASWINI SANKAR R.S.
T.H.ARAVIND
T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR-680001.
4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR-680503.
5 THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL
STATION, THRISSUR-680001.
WP(C) NO.1839 OF 2023
-: 2 :-
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Sathish Ninan, J.
----------------------
WP(C) No.20042 of 2019
-------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was appointed as L.P.School Assistant in
M.G.School, Kanjiramukku in Kunnamkulam Education Sub
District in the Thrissur District, on 30/06/1997. She
completed 15 years of service on 29/06/2012. On such
completion she became eligible for grant of Senior
Grade.
2. For the grant of Senior Grade, petitioner
submitted Ext.P4 option dated 25/10/2012. In Ext.P4, the
date of option was shown as 30/06/2012. The pay was
shown as 19,740/-. The option was duly accepted and
sanctioned by the 4th respondent - The Assistant
Educational Officer. The petitioner was being paid
salary accordingly.
3. Subsequently, there was an audit objection as
WP(C) NO.20042 OF 2019
is evidenced by Ext.P1, that there has been wrong
fixation of pay since one additional increment has been
included in the petitioner's pay. As per Ext.P1, such
error was directed to be corrected and the excess amount
paid to the petitioner was ordered to be recovered.
Exts.P5 and P6 communications have been issued in
pursuance thereof. It is thereupon that the petitioner
has approached this Court.
4. I have heard Sri.S.M.Prasanth, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Bijoy Chandran, the
learned Senior Government Pleader.
5. As noticed, the audit objection is that, one
additional increment has been included in the pay of the
petitioner. Increment was due to the petitioner on
01/07/2012. Petitioner completed 15 years of service and
became eligible for Senior Grade on 29/06/2012. She
submitted the Form of Option on 25/10/2012. In Ext.P4,
WP(C) NO.20042 OF 2019
the scale of pay shown in Column/Sl.No.12 as inclusive
of the increment due on 01/07/2012. The salary payable
as shown in Column/Sl.No.13 in Ext.P4 was also shown as
inclusive of the increment due on 01/07/2012. At
Column/Sl.No.14 of Ext.P4, the date of effect of option
was shown as 01/07/2012. At Column/Sl.No.15, the normal
date of next increment was shown as 01/07/2013. The
above facts indicate that the petitioner intended the
date of option for Senior Grade as 01/07/2012. However,
in Ext.P4 at Column/Sl.No.9 - the 'date of option if
any', was shown as 30/06/2012. It is based on the
mentioning of the said date of option in Ext.P4 that the
audit objection was raised. This is so because one
increment fell due only on 01/07/2012. According to the
petitioner it was a mistake that had occurred on his
part.
6. As noticed above, in Ext.P4 option itself, the
WP(C) NO.20042 OF 2019
petitioner has shown the next scale of pay inclusive of
the increment due on 01/07/2012 and the pay has also
been indicated accordingly. Further in Ext.P4, the date
of effect of the option was also shown as 01/07/2012.
The next increment being due on 01/07/2012 and if
petitioner intended 30/6/2012 as the date of option she
could not have taken into account the increment due on
01/07/2012. It is evident that in Ext.P4, the mentioning
of the date of option as '30/06/2012' can only be a
mistake as claimed by the petitioner. Incidentally, it
is also relevant to note that the 4 th respondent - The
Assistant Educational Officer who verified Ext.P4 and
sanctioned the same also took note of the scale of pay
and the date of effect of the option as mentioned in
Ext.P4 and considered the date of option as 01/07/2012.
On the peculiar facts obtained in the present case it
could only be held that the mentioning of the date of
WP(C) NO.20042 OF 2019
option in Ext.P4 as '30/06/2012' could only be a
mistake.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It is
declared that the mentioning of the date of option in
Ext.P4 at Column/SL.No.9 as '30/06/2012' is a mistake
and it has to be read as '01/07/2012'. In the light of
such declaration, the audit objection cannot be
sustained. Exts.P1, P5 and P6 orders issued pursuant to
such objections are quashed.
Sd/-
Sathish Ninan, Judge
rsr
WP(C) NO.20042 OF 2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20042/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION MADE BY THE
ACCOUNTS OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF
PAY OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVISED
SCALE.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
28.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF OPTION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF
GOVERNMENT DATED 29.04.2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10.06.2019 OF
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P).NO.129/2019/FIN
DATED 23.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
