*Siphee M T vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1576 Ker

Kerala High Court

*Siphee M T vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2026

Author: N. Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

                                                        2026:KER:13103


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

     FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947

                        WP(C) NO. 3417 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

          SIPHEE M T
          AGED 56 YEARS
          LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, ST.THOMAS UPPER PRIMARY
          SCHOOL, THURUTHOOR, PUTHENVELIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
          W/O.JOSEMON V A, RESIDING AT VELIKKAKATHOTTU HOUSE,
          KRISHNANKOTTA P O, THRISSUR.

          CORRECTED THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT AS SIPHEE M T AND
          THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE AS KRISHNANKOTTA AND ALSO THE
          DISTRICT WHERE THE APPLICANT'S SCHOOL IS SITUATED AS
          ERNAKULAM INSTEAD OF THRISSUR DISTRICT. CORRECTED AS
          PER ORDER DATED 27-05-2024 IN IA 1/2024., PIN - 680733


          BY ADVS.
          SRI.M.A.FAYAZ
          SMT.M.VISHNUPRIYA
          SMT.C.B.ABHINAVA


RESPONDENTS:



    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
          GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    2     DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
          O/O THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
          JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
                                             2026:KER:13103
W.P.(C) No.3417/2024
                            :2:

    3      DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ERNAKULAM
           O/O THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ERNAKULAM
           ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030

    4      ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NORTH PARAVOOR
           O/O THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
           NORTH PARAVOOR, PARAVOOR, PIN - 683513

    5      MANAGER
           O/O THE CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY,
           DIOCIES OF KOTTAPPURAM, KOTTAPURAM,
           KODUNGALLOOR, PIN - 680667


           BY ADV
           SRI. PREMCHAND R NAIR, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION   ON  02.12.2025, THE COURT ON  13.02.2026
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                2026:KER:13103
W.P.(C) No.3417/2024
                                      :3:




                            N. NAGARESH, J.

          `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                       W.P.(C) No.3417 of 2024

          `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
             Dated this the 13th day of February, 2026


                            JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

Petitioner, who is working as Lower Primary

School Teacher (LPST), seeks to call for the records leading

to Ext.P2 audit objection and to set aside the same to the

extent it directs to refund the alleged excess drawal of salary

due to irregular fixation at the time of the grant of first Time

Bound Higher Grade by issuing a writ of certiorari.

2. The petitioner states that she was appointed

as LPST in St. Antony's Upper Primary School,

Malapallippuram, Thrissur with effect from 08.06.1993. The

petitioner was granted first Time Bound Higher Grade in the 2026:KER:13103

year 2003. On completion of 16 years of service, the

petitioner was granted Senior Grade and thereafter, on

completion of 22 years of service, she was granted Selection

Grade.

3. There were no complaints on the fixation

pursuant to grant of Higher Grades and Pay Revision Orders

till now. However, when the pension papers of the petitioner

was being processed, the 3rd respondent-Deputy Director of

Education found that the petitioner was irregularly granted

first Time Bound Higher Grade, reckoning 8 days of Leave

Without Allowance taken by the petitioner from 18.03.1998 to

25.03.1998. The 3rd respondent ordered to cancel the Time

Bound Higher Grades granted to the petitioner and to re-fix

the salary.

4. The Headmistress of the School intimated

the petitioner about Ext.P2 audit objection. The audit

objection was made for the very first time after 20 years of the

grant of fist Time Bound Higher Grade. The petitioner 2026:KER:13103

submitted Ext.P3 revised fixation statement excluding 8 days

of LWA, since the petitioner is on the verge of retirement.

Then the petitioner was informed that she will have to refund

an amount of about ₹2,40,000/- which is the alleged excess

drawal of salary.

5. The petitioner states that such recovery will

be in gross violation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White washer)

[2015 (1) KLT 429 (SC)] and in High Court of Punjab and

Haryana v. Jagdev Singh [2016 (3) KLT OnLine 2063 (SC)].

Ext.P2 is therefore liable to be quashed, contends the

petitioner.

6. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit.

The 3rd respondent stated that the petitioner had availed

Leave Without Allowance from 18.03.1998 to 25.03.1998.

Erroneously, this period was reckoned for grant of Time

Bound Higher Grades. The petitioner submitted option for

Pay Revision 2004 on 11.05.2005 and three increments were 2026:KER:13103

sanctioned as weightage of service. While granting these

three increments also, the 8 days LWA was accounted.

Therefore, fixation of pay and Time Bound Higher Grade

which are already sanctioned to the petitioner are liable to be

revised.

7. The Time Bound Higher Grades and Pay

Revision 2004, 2009, 2014 and 2019 already granted to the

petitioner has been revised and re-fixed. But, the excess

amount of ₹2,21,952/- drawn by the petitioner has not been

refunded yet. The writ petition is therefore without any merit

and is to be dismissed, contended the 3rd respondent.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader

representing the respondents.

9. The facts are not in serious dispute. The

petitioner was appointed as LPST on 08.06.1993 and was

granted Time Bound Higher Grades on completion of 8 years,

16 years and 22 years of service. The first Time Bound 2026:KER:13103

Higher Grade was granted to the petitioner in the year 2003.

While granting the said first Time Bound Higher Grade, an

error crept in inasmuch as 8 days LWA availed by the

petitioner was treated as service for the purpose of grant of

Higher Grade.

10. This error which occurred more than 20

years ago was not detected in time. Now, when the petitioner

is on the verge of retirement, an audit objection has been

raised and the petitioner's salary is sought to be revised and

excess pay is sought to be recovered. As the petitioner is on

the verge of retirement, the petitioner agreed for submitting a

revised fixation ignoring the 8 days LWA. It is submitted by

either side that pension papers are being processed after

correcting the mistake.

11. The question remaining is about the alleged

recovery of excess pay. As stated earlier, the error in the

fixation of Higher Grade of the petitioner occurred more than

22 years ago. It was for no fault of the petitioner. Had audits 2026:KER:13103

been done promptly, the error could have been detected

much earlier. For the fault of the respondents, it will be

inequitable to recover huge amounts from the retirement

benefits of the petitioner alleging excess pay, at this distance

of time.

12. In the judgment in Rafiq Masih (White

Washer) (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that even

excess payment due to wrong understanding of law cannot

be recovered unless the employee has contributed to the

mistakes and that recovery shall not be done from employees

belonging to Group C and Group D and also from employees

who are to retire within one year.

13. In the facts of the case, I am of the firm view

that taking into consideration the spirit of the judgments

delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of recovery,

Ext.P2 audit objection to the extent it contemplates recovery

from the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

2026:KER:13103

The writ petition is therefore disposed of

setting aside Ext.P2 audit objection to the extent it directs to

refund the alleged excess drawal of salary from the petitioner.

The 3rd respondent is directed to process the pension

proposal of the petitioner in the light of Ext.P3 statement of

revised fixation of pay, if the proposal is still pending.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/11.02.2026 2026:KER:13103

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 3417 OF 2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENT OF APPROVAL BY THE AEO MALA DATED 08.06.1993.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION (NO C/1013/2023)OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01.08.2023 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REFIXATION STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA.NO.65/2022 DATED 08.08.2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT) NO 95/2023 DATED 06.06.2023

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R3(a) THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE GO(P) NO.

145/2006/FIN DATED 25.03.006 EXHIBIT R3(c) CIRCULAR NO.16/98/FIN DATED 16.03.1998 EXHIBIT R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.72/2005 DATED 30.12.2005/FIN

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER NO.1124299316 DATED 10.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL