Ramlu M.M. v. State of Kerala and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2014 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1936 **WP(C).No. 11537 of 2012** ## **PETITIONER** : RAMLU M.M., AGED 55 YEARS, W/O MR. ABDUL KADHER FAISANI, H.S.A., (ARABIC) AL AMEEN HIGH SCHOOL, KECHERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680501. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.MAJEED SRI.K.H.ASIF ## **RESPONDENTS** : 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL SECRETARY, GENERL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OFFICE, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCAITON, D.D'S OFFICE, THRISSUR-680001. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, D.E.O'S OFFICE, CHAVAKKADU-680506. 5. THE HEAD MASTER, - AL AMEEN HIGH SCHOOL, KECHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680501. R1-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOWSHAD THOTTATHIL R5 BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 11537 of 2012 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: - EXT.P1: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 09.03.1999. - EXT.P2: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL DATED 08/05/2011 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. - EXT.P3: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.E2-2166/2012 DATED 22.02.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY // TKS ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.** ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.11537 of 2012 ------------------------------Dated 22[nd] July, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner who retired from service on 31.3.2013 while working as High School Assistant (Arabic) (HSA (Arabic)) in Al Ameen High School, Kechery filed this writ petition on being aggrieved by Ext.P3 whereunder the Head Master of the aforesaid school was directed to revise the pay of the petitioner with effect from 1.7.1997 owing to the erroneous fixation by reckoning pre-resignation service in the lower post in a different management for weightage for fixation of pay in 1997 Pay Revision and 2009 Pay Revision. Prior to her entry in service of the said school she had service in the category of Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) from 14.6.1978 to 1.6.1982 in Gnanaprakashini U.P. School, Kechery under different management. In fact, the petitioner had resigned from the post of UPSA in Gnanaprakashini U.P. School for the purpose of taking up employment as HSA in Al Ameen High School, Kechery. While working in Al Ameen High School the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 statement of fixation on 9.3.1999 opting to come over to the revised scale based on the 1997 pay revision order with effect from 1.7.1997. The pay of the petitioner WP(C).No.11537/2012 2 was fixed pursuant to the said statement of fixation and subsequently the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 statement of fixation of pay opting to come over to the revised scale based on the 2009 Pay Revision Order with effect from 1.7.2009. The said options of the petitioner were acted upon based on the sanction given by the officers concerned and the pay of the petitioner was fixed pursuant to the 1997 pay revision based on Ext.P1 statement of fixation and 2009 pay revision was fixed based on Exts.P2 statement of fixation. Later, on 22.2.2012 the petitioner was served with Ext.P3 order issued by the third respondent directing the 5[th] respondent, the Headmaster of Al Ameen High School, Kechery to produce the refund details with the Service Book. In Ext.P3 it is stated that on verification of the Service Book in respect of the petitioner it was seen that pre-resignation service in the lower post in a different management had been reckoned for weightage for fixation of pay in 1997 pay revision and 2009 pay revision and since reckoning of the aforesaid service for weightage was inadmissible, the pay of the teacher had to be regularised by revising the pay fixations with effect from 1.7.1997 and the excess amount drawn by the petitioner had to be recovered. In fact, as per the said order, the amount received by the petitioner in excess was ordered to be refunded and therefore, the WP(C).No.11537/2012 3 refund particulars with Service Book were directed to be submitted for verification. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P3 was issued based on the verification of the Service Book while preparing the pension papers of the petitioner and the said order requiring refund of the excess amount was issued long later to the actual receipt of the benefits fixed based on the 1997 and 2009 pay revisions. It is the further contention of the petitioner that misrepresentation could not be attributed on the petitioner for the purpose of getting her pay fixed based on Exts.P1 and P2 statements of fixation. In the said circumstances, relying on the decision of this Court in **Narayanan T.K.** v. **State of Kerala and Others (2008 (3) KLT 188)** and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Aleyamma Varghese** v. **Secretary, General Education Department (2007 (3) KLT 700 (SC))** it is contended that the amount received by the petitioner allegedly in excess could not be recovered on the strength of Ext.P3. It is with the aforesaid averments that the captioned writ petition has been filed, seeking mainly with the following prayers:- - (i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P1 to P-3 and quash Ext.P3, finding that the demand of recovery of excess mount received by the petitioner made in Ext.P3 is illegal; WP(C).No.11537/2012 4 - (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction, directing the 4[th] respondent to pay salary of the petitioner without any deduction on account of existence of Ext.P3 regularly; - (iii) declare that the demand made in Ext.P3 to the extent of reckoning of weightage for fixation of pay of the petitioner in 1997 and 2009 pay revision as illegal;” 2. A perusal of the prayers of the petitioner would reveal that the petitioner seeks quashment of Ext.P3 and seeking a direction to the 4[th] respondent to pay salary of the petitioner without any deduction owing to the existence of Ext.P3 and that apart, seeking a declaration that the demand made as per Ext.P3 to the extent of non-reckoning of the pre-resignation service put in by the petitioner for the purpose of weightage for fixation of pay based on 1997 and 2009 pay revisions as illegal. Thus, in sum and substance, the contention of the petitioner is that after fixing pay of the petitioner based on Exts.P1 and P2, after a long lapse of time, her pay could not be scaled down and no recovery could be effected alleging a wrong fixation of pay based on Exts.P1 and P2. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent. It is stated therein that on verification of the Service Book for admitting the fixations of pay which is to be conducted mandatorily prior to the retirement, erroneous fixations of pay granted to the WP(C).No.11537/2012 5 petitioner in 1997 and 2009 pay revisions were detected. It is stated therein that the pay of the petitioner was fixed irregularly by reckoning the pre-resignation service of the petitioner from 14.6.1978 to 1.6.1982 rendered by her in the category of UPSA in a different management and reckoning of such services for the purpose of service weightage was impermissible. It is the specific contention of the third respondent that as per Note 1 below Rule 4 of Annexure III to G.O.(P)No.3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998 and Note below Rule 4 of Annexure II to G.O.(P)No. 143/11/Fin. dated 30.03.2011 it was made clear that the service including broken period of service qualifying for normal increments could be reckoned for service weightage and the pre-resignation service put in by the petitioner in a lower post under different management would not and could not be reckoned as qualifying service for normal increments and therefore, the same could not have been reckoned for service weightage. It was in the said circumstances that Ext.P3 was issued to the 5[th] respondent to regularise the pay of the petitioner by revising the pay fixations and also to refund the excess salary drawn by the petitioner. It is the further case of the 3[rd] respondent that the District Educational Officer, Chavakkad relying on Exts.P1 and P2 statements of fixation submitted by the petitioner erroneously fixed the pay of the WP(C).No.11537/2012 6 petitioner and since those fixations were effected erroneously the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that despite the detection of the wrong fixation it could not be corrected at a later point of time. It is the further contention of the third respondent that in the light of the declarations signed by the petitioner, at the time of pay fixation, the petitioner cannot raise any objection with respect to the steps initiated by the respondents as per Ext.P3 and also to refund the excess amount drawn. As per the provisions contained in paragraph 54 of 1997 Pay Revision Orders recoveries of excess amount drawn by the employees due to irregular fixation could be insisted upon by the controlling officers. In short, the stand of the third respondent is that since pay of the petitioner was fixed erroneously based on Exts.P1 and P2 under 1997 and 2009 pay revisions respectively, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that she is entitled to retain the amount. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 5. I have already taken note of the rival contentions. The contention of the petitioner referred above would reveal that the core contention of the petitioner is that she is not liable to refund the amount based on Ext.P3 as the Educational authorities have fixed the pay of the WP(C).No.11537/2012 7 petitioner after verifying and accepting the pay fixation statements given by her as per Exts.P1 and P2. Since such fixations were effected long ago there is absolutely no justification for seeking a re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner and also to effect recovery. In other words, at this distance of time, the petitioner cannot be asked to refund the amount received in excess. To see whether the petitioner is having a case as to whether she is legally entitled to retain the amount, in other words, whether the pay fixations effected based on Exts.P1 and P2 are legally correct I have gone through grounds (A) to (E) raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. Despite my earnest endeavour I could not find out any specific ground taken by the petitioner to lend support to the fixation effected based on Exts.P1 and P2. In other words, it is not specifically stated therein that the fixation effected by the authorities accepting Exts.P1 and P2 are legally sustainable as the pre-resignation service rendered by the petitioner from 14.6.1978 to 1.6.1982 was reckonable as qualifying service for the purpose of giving service weightage under the 1997 pay revision as also under the 2009 pay revision. Despite the absence of any such pleadings in the writ petition the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an endeavour to support the fixation effected based on Exts.P1 and P2. WP(C).No.11537/2012 8 6. In a bid to support the fixation under Exts.P1 and P2 firstly, it is contended that no provision has been referred to in Ext.P3 to canvass the position that the pre-resignation service rendered by the petitioner for the aforesaid period in a lower category under a different management was not reckonable as qualifying service for the purpose of increments and thereby for the purpose of weightage under the 1997 and 2009 pay revision orders. Thus, it is obvious that according to the learned counsel, the burden to show that it was not reckonable is on the respondents. It is the contention that in the absence of any specific provision interdicting reckoning of a service rendered in a lower category under an aided school management for the purpose of fixation of qualifying service for increment in another school in a different management in a higher category the respondents are not justified in ordering for refund of the amount allegedly received by the petitioner in excess. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if at all it is received by the petitioner in excess based on such a wrong fixation, after a long lapse of time, the respondents are not justified in taking steps for re-fixing the fixations effected based on Exts.P1 and P2 and also to scale down her salary. To buttress the said contention the learned counsel relied on the decisions in **Narayanan's** WP(C).No.11537/2012 9 case (supra) and **Aleyamma Varghese's** case (supra) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Syed Abdul Qadir and Others** v. **State of Bihar and Others (2009 KHC 4219).** The petitioner has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in W.P.(C)No.15906 of 2013 dated 30.6.2014. 7. The rival contentions and a perusal of Ext.P3 would reveal that the fixations effected under 1997 and 2009 pay revision orders based on the statements of fixation given by the petitioner viz., Exts.P1 and P2 were now interfered for the reason that the pre-resignation service rendered by the petitioner from 14.6.1978 to 1.6.1982 was not reckonable as qualifying service for the purpose of increments and therefore, the statements of fixation of the petitioner given as per Exts.P1 and P2, made after including such service, should not have been acted upon. Admittedly, the said service was rendered by the petitioner in the lower category of UPSA that too, in a different aided school management. It is after resigning from Gnanaprakashini U.P. School, Kechery that the petitioner took up employment as HSA in Al Ameen High School admittedly, under a different management. Therefore, essentially, the question is whether the pre-resignation service put in by the petitioner in the lower post of UPSA in Gnanaprakashini U.P. School WP(C).No.11537/2012 10 could be reckoned for weightage for fixation under 1997 and 2009 pay revisions based on the statements of fixation given by the petitioner as per Exts.P1 and P2 while working as HSA (Arabic) in Al Ameen High School. 8. It is also to be noted that the petitioner has taken up another ground viz., violation of the principles of natural justice as a reason to mount challenge against Ext.P3. I have already referred to grounds (A) to (E) raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. Upon such scrutiny of the grounds it is evident that the petitioner has not taken up any specific ground relying on any specific provision under any Statute or any relevant Government Order authorising for reckoning such a service as qualifying service for increments so as to make it reckonable for weightage for fixation of pay under 1997 and 2009 pay revisions. When that be the position, the question is, merely for violating principles of natural justice an order like Ext.P3 is liable to be interfered with ? There is no room for any doubt with respect to the position settled in that regard as in a catena of cases it was held by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court that an order could not be interfered with solely on account of violation of principles of natural justice if even after hearing the party the same order alone could be passed. In other words, WP(C).No.11537/2012 11 it will be a futile exercise to ask an authority to reconsider the issue solely for the purpose of satisfying the principles of natural justice if even after a hearing only one view is possible in the matter. No specific provision has been brought to my notice by the petitioner to establish that the pre-resignation service rendered by the petitioner was liable to be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of increments and thereby for the purpose of weightage for fixation of pay under pay revision orders. True that, a feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Rule 61 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules more particularly, sub-rule (4) of Rule 61. Subrule (4) of Rule 61 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules reads thus:- “ **61. Increment:- .............** **(4)** All duty in a post on a time scale whether continuous or interrupted shall count for increment in that time scale” (emphasis added) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since under sub-rule (4) of Rule 61 of Chapter XIV-A, KER all duty in a post on a time scale whether continuous or interrupted should count for increments there is no reason for the respondents to raise any objection against the pay fixation statements given by the petitioner under Exts.P1 WP(C).No.11537/2012 12 and P2 and the consequential fixation of pay. I am afraid the said contention cannot be upheld. Obviously, the petitioner had rendered the pre-resignation service in a lower category of UPSA which carries a lower time scale and that too under a different aided school management. The petitioner submitted Exts.P1 and P2 after resigning from the Gnanaprakashini U.P. School where she was working as UPSA and at a time while working as HSA(Arabic) in Al Ameen High School, under a different management. In the said circumstances, it is only apposite to refer to Exts.P1 and P2. In Ext.P1 Sl.No.5 reads thus:- “5. No. of completed years of service counting for service weightage as on the date of option : 18 years” As against Sl.No.1 the date of option was given as 9.3.1999. Going by the entry against Sl.No.5 in Ext.P1 the petitioner had made an entry that she had completed 18 years of service as on 9.3.1999 for service benefits. The Note under Rule 61(4) of Chapter XIV-A, KER also assumes relevance in the contextual situation, which reads thus:- - Note.: Service for the purpose of this rule means Service including broken periods of service qualifying for normal increments in the scale of pay. Time spent on leave not counting for normal increment will not be reckoned (Rule 4 Annexure III).” Thus, the afore-extracted `Note' would make it very clear that non- WP(C).No.11537/2012 13 qualifying service for normal increments could not be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of counting the service weightage under the said pay revision orders. It is the common case that the petitioner had shown the pre-resignation service rendered by her in the lower category of UPSA under a different management from 14.6.1978 to 1.6.1982 for the purpose of counting the completed years of service for service weightage while submitting Exts.P1 and P2. There is no specific case for the petitioner that under the 1997 pay revision order as also under 2009 pay revision order the aided school service rendered in a lower category under a different management could be reckoned for the purpose of service weightage. At the same time, going by the specific contentions of the third respondent that remained unrefuted would go to show that an aided school service rendered by a Government servant and vice versa are not reckonable for the purpose of weightage under the said pay revision orders. However, the contention of the petitioner is that here both the pre-resignation service and the post-resignation service of the petitioner is, in aided schools. Since the pay master in respect of all aided school employees is the Government there is no reason to take up a stand that the service rendered by the petitioner under one aided school management would WP(C).No.11537/2012 14 not be taken up for consideration for the purpose of increments and thereby for the purpose of weightage while working in a different category under another aided school management, it is contended. At the same time, it is to be seen that if the said reasoning is accepted then it has to be held that there is no reason to deny reckoning of aided school service put in by a Government servant prior to his entry in Government service and vice versa and therefore, the question to be considered is whether under the relevant pay revision orders any specific condition is there permitting reckoning of such a service for the purpose of reckoning weightage. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner did not have any such case. Even the contention raised by the petitioner relying on Rule 61 cannot be upheld in the absence of any specific provision enabling reckoning of a service rendered under a lower category under a different management for the purpose of fixation of pay while rendering service in a higher category under a different management. When respondents issued Ext.P3 and took a decision to direct the petitioner to refund excess amount received based on the pay fixation under 1997 and 2009 pay revision orders on the ground that the pre-resignation service rendered by the petitioner in a lower category under a different management could not and should not have been accepted as qualifying WP(C).No.11537/2012 15 service for increments and thereby for the purpose of reckoning the weightage I am of the view that it is for the petitioner to establish that, that stand of the respondents is illegal and it is against the provisions of law. As noticed hereinbefore, no specific provision authorising reckoning of such a service for the purpose of fixation of pay under a pay revision order was brought to my notice. It is in that context that the Note to Sl.No.5 in Ext.P1 assumes relevance. As noticed hereinbefore, under the said Note it is made clear that the service qualifying for normal increments alone could be reckoned for the purpose of service weightage. In the said circumstances, owing to the failure on the part of the petitioner to bring to my notice any specific provision enabling reckoning of pre-resignation service referred to in Ext.P3 for the purpose of granting weightage under the 1997 and 2009 pay revision orders, I cannot find any fault with the stand taken by the respondents in Ext.P3 that the said service could not be reckoned for the purpose of fixation of pay under 1997 and 2009 pay revision orders. 9. The next question to be considered is whether solely because Ext.P3 was issued long later to the fixation effected based on Exts.P1 and P2 under 1997 and 2009 pay revision orders Ext.P3 is liable to be interfered with ? The petitioner relies on the decision of this Court WP(C).No.11537/2012 16 in **Narayanan's** case (supra) and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Aleyamma Varghese's** case (supra). Those decisions were considered by a Division Bench of this Court in **State of Kerala and others** v. **P.K.Mahadevan Nair and Others (2012 (4) KHC 160 (DB))** . In paragraph 4 of the said judgment it was held by the Division Bench that going by the **Narayanan's** case and **Aleyamma Varghese's** case it is evident that there was a precedent on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case involved thereunder and no law was laid down by the said rulings. In other words, it was held therein that it could not be said that there is an inviolable position that recovery of excess pay drawn by an employee, based on an erroneous fixation of pay, could not be effected at any circumstance. At the same time, in the said decision the Division Bench took note of the decisions of this Court in **Santhakumari** v. **State of Kerala (2005 KHC 1815)** and **Venugopal.K.P.** v. **State of Kerala (2009 93) KHC 26)** . In **Santhakumari's** case (supra) the dispute was regarding receipt of an amount contrary to the statutory provisions and in that case a Division Bench of this Court held in paragraph 6 as follows:- “We may hasten to add, unless there is statutory bar in recovering the amount, any amount paid by mistake could be recovered depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To hold that only WP(C).No.11537/2012 17 in a case where employee has contributed to the mistake amount could be recovered cannot be sustained. Facts situation may warrant a sympathetic consideration but cannot be accepted as a general principle of law.” In **Venugopal's** case (supra) the question was one relating to the recovery of service benefits illegitimately retained. After referring to **Aleyamma Varghese** 's case and **Santhakumari's** case the Division Bench of this Court held in paragraph 7 as follows:- “7. If the petitioner were to be permitted to retain the service benefits legitimately not due to him and undeservingly received by him, it would not only by contrary to the legal provisions already adverted to, but also would mean that he can take up ignorance of law as an excuse. Moreover, such a permission would amount to putting a premium on dishonesty. All that apart, such a gesture either on the part of the Government or on the part of the Court would send a wrong message to law abiding Government servants who are to remain content with what is pecuniary gain wrongly enjoyed by the petitioner.” In the light of the decision in **Mahadevan Nair's** case (supra) the learned Government Pleader submitted that what matters is not passage of time, but the entitlement to retain the amount. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner did not have a case that the pay fixations were effected correctly by the educational authorities based on Exts.P1 and P2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in **Syed Abdul Qadir's** case (supra) to contend the WP(C).No.11537/2012 18 position that recovery would be generally prohibited by courts where there was no misrepresentation or fraud on employee's part and excess payment was made by applying a wrong principle or wrong interpretation of a rule/order. Even the said decision relied on by the petitioner would reveal that it did not lay down a position of law that at all circumstances the court should prohibit recovery of excess pay drawn based on an erroneous fixation of pay if there was no misrepresentation or fraud from the part of the concerned employee. In **Syed Abdul Qadir's** case Government took over the Nationalised schools in the State of Bihar. The pay fixation effected reckoning the service by such teachers in the Nationalised schools for the purpose of fixation of pay was later attempted to be interfered with and their earlier service was deleted from the period of qualifying service. Taking note of the fact that after taking over the school merely because of the fact that FR.22C was deleted by a subsequent notification no recovery could be ordered and the fixation of pay effected earlier in respect of teachers reckoning such service could not be reviewed, it was held. It is thus evident that in that case ultimately the school in question was taken over by the Government. In this case, such a contingency did not occur. In fact, the petitioner was working under an aided school management in a lower WP(C).No.11537/2012 19 category of UPSA when she accepted the post of HSA which carries a higher time scale under a different management after resigning from the service of the former management. Definitely, the case stands on a different footing and the petitioner therefore cannot rely on the decision in **Syed Abdul Qadir's** case to canvass the position that the recovery is impermissible. 10. Above all, in this case, there is yet another factor that should go against the petitioner. It is also to be noted that the specific contention raised by the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner had given an undertaking at the time of fixation of her pay pursuant to 1997 pay revision and 2009 pay revision that any amount received in excess in case of erroneous fixation, would be refunded. That apart, the erroneous fixation was detected by the authorities while the petitioner was in service. Obviously, Ext.P3 was issued on 22.2.2012 and the petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2013 viz., only after an year from the date of issuance of Ext.P3. When an erroneous fixation under a pay revision order is detected it cannot be contended by the employee concerned that despite the detection of such erroneous fixation there could not be any recovery or scaling down of the pay thus fixed wrongly especially after giving an undertaking at the time of pay fixation WP(C).No.11537/2012 20 based on pay revision order. In the decision in **Mahadevan Nair's** case (supra) this Court held that if an erroneous fixation of pay has been detected necessarily, it should have the inevitable impact of scaling down the erroneously fixed pay and in such circumstances, it would only be an inevitable step to effect recovery of the amount received in excess. The reason for the same is that nobody can be permitted to retain an amount to which he/she is not legally entitled to receive. The petitioner did not have a case and in fact, cannot have a case that she is illiterate and therefore, unaware of the impact of the undertaking given at the time of fixation of pay under the pay revision orders. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner has failed to establish that legally she is entitled to get the pay fixation based on Exts.P1 and P2. In short, I am of the view that when once it is found that the pay fixation of the petitioner under 1997 and 2009 pay revision orders was effected erroneously, acting upon Exts.P1 and P2, the authority concerned are legally bound to correct the mistake and to order for taking consequential steps for effecting recovery. That is exactly what was ordered under Ext.P3. In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P3 and consequently this writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed. Since the petitioner has already retired WP(C).No.11537/2012 21 from service the recovery shall not be effected in lump and in such circumstances, it is only proper to effect recovery from the petitioner in easy instalments, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the relevant provision empowering such recovery is there in Rule 3(c) under Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. In terms of the provisions under Chapter XXVII-B of the Kerala Education Rules such provisions under the Kerala Service Rules is applicable to aided schools, it is contended. I do not find it necessary to go into such question as it is for the respondents to refer to the relevant provisions and to effect recovery in accordance with law, but in instalments. Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS