High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2007-07-18Writ petition disposed; Ext.P2 held valid; exce...

Shibu S. et al. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.28024/2004-J

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Balakrishnan Nair
Judgment Date: 2007-07-18
Court Decision / Holding: The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Ext.P2’s interpretation of the date of effect is valid. The petitioners’ excess payments from 1.3.1997 to Ext.P2 are recoverable, but the recovery shall be effected in easy monthly installments without any interest.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed; Ext.P2 held valid; excess salary recovered in easy installments without interest; no retention of excess payments.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SHIBU. S., P.C. Q.4517, Sakthikulnagar Police Station, Kollam
CHANDRA BABU, P.C.Q.4516, Chandayamangal am Police Station, Kollam
THYAGARAJAN, P.C.Q.3943, Kottarakara Police Station, Kollam
SREEKUMAR, P.C.Q.4078, Ochira Police Station, Kollam
SATHEESAN PILLAI, P.C.Q.3865, Thennala Police Station, Kollam
GANGADHARAN PILLAI, P.C.Q.3897, Punalur Police Station, Kollam
SASIDHARAN, P.C.Q.3895, Thenmala Police Station, Kollam
SURESH KUMAR, P.C.Q.3927, Punalur Police Station, Kollam
JOHNSON DANIEL, P.C.Q.4575, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kollam
RADHAKRISHNAN PILLAI, P.C.Q.3858, Ezhukone Police Station, Kollam
RAJENDRAN, P.C.Q.3861, Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam
SREEKUMAR, P.C.Q.4331, Kundara Police Station, Kollam
RADHAKRISHNAN, P.C.Q.4518, Traffic Police Station, Kollam
RAJENDRAN, P.C.Q.3898, Pallithottam Police Station, Kollam
SIVAPRASAD, P.C.Q.3931, SBCID, Kollam
REGHUNATHAN UNNITHAN, P.C.Q.3922, V.A.C.B., Kollam
RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, P.C.Q.3915, Anchal Police Station, Kollam
DOMANIC, P.C.Q.3917, Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam
RAJU, P.C.Q.3909, Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam
SUNIL, P.C.Q.4523, Paravoor Police Station, Kollam
ASOKAN, P.C.Q.4544, Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam
UDYAKUMAR, P.C.Q.4619, Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA, represented by its Secretary, Home (A) Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
THE SECRETARY, FINANCE (PAY REVISION IMPLEMENTATION) DEPARTMENT, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, Kerala State, Thiruvananthapuram
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, Kollam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri Shabu Sreedharan
• Sri P.A. Noor Muhammed

Counsels for Respondents

• SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FINANCE) Sri N. Manoj Kumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C) No. 28024/2004-J) concerns a group of police personnel challenging a Government order (Ext.P2, dated 18.7.2000) that retrospectively narrows the date from which higher grade promotions, granted under Ext.P1 (dated 24.11.1999) would take effect. Ext.P1 had ordered higher grades on completion of 10 years of service with effect from the date of the last pay revision, 25.11.1998, and earlier arrears were paid accordingly. Ext.P2 interpreted the date of effect for the higher grade as 25.11.1998, thereby reducing benefits and initiating recovery of excess salary paid from 1.3.1997 onward. The petitioners contend that Ext.P2 is an improper re-dating and seek protection from recovery, citing Supreme Court decisions (Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana; P.H.Reddy & Ors. v. N.T.R.D. & Ors.) which discuss limits on recovery of erroneous payments. The respondents defend Ext.P2 as a valid interpretation of pay revision orders and rely on Kerala Division Bench decisions (Santhakumari v. State of Kerala; State of Kerala v. Saiful Islam) in their stance. The judge ultimately upholds Ext.P2’s interpretation of the date of effect and holds that recovery of the excess payment is permissible, given public-money principles, but orders it to be recovered in easy installments without interest. The petition is disposed of accordingly, with a finding that timely detection justifies recovery, and no retention of excess payments is allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

G.O.(MS) No.234/99/HOME dated 24/11/1999G.O.(MS) No.174/2000/HOME dated 18/07/2000G.O.(P) No.3000/98/FIN dated 25/11/19981.3.199725/11/19981.11.1998 (para 38(a))

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Public money is the asset of the state; government is its custodian.
Recovery of excess payments should be considered with due regard to the time of detection and the potential hardship to public finances.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that Ext.P2 fixes the date of effect of Ext.P1 in a way that retracts the higher grade promotion and arrears already granted; Ext.P2’s interpretation is not justifiable as it prematurely recoups public funds. They rely on Supreme Court rulings (Sahib Ram; P.H.Reddy) to argue that recovery should be limited, especially where detection occurs quickly; they note that the government acted within a short time after discovery and that public money is to be prudently handled, not unduly recovered once paid. They also cite Kerala Division Bench decisions (Santhakumari; Saiful Islam) to show proneness against retroactive recovery where appropriate. They request protection from recovery or a reduction of the recovery burden.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submitted that pay revision has a nuanced date of effect for different benefits; Ext.P1 conferred higher grade with retrospective effect from 25.11.1998, and Ext.P2 clarifies the date of effect for the higher grade. They argued that recovery is permissible given misallocation and miscalculation, and that the State acted promptly (Ext.P2) to rectify the error. They relied on statutory pay revision orders and related Government decisions to justify retrospective effect and the recovery of excess payments as a legitimate correction within the public financial framework; they also referenced Kerala authority decisions to support their stance.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana	1995 Supp (1) SCC 18	Mentioned Only	Cited by petitioners; court acknowledges but does not adopt as controlling the recovery issue.
P.H.Reddy & Ors. v. N.T.R.D. & Ors.	JT 2002(2) SC 483	Mentioned Only	Cited by petitioners; court notes but does not rely on it for decisive ruling.
Santhakumari v. State of Kerala	2005(4) KLT 649	Mentioned Only	Cited by respondents; court references but does not follow as precedent in this context.
State of Kerala v. Saiful Islam	2006(1) KLT 619	Mentioned Only	Cited by respondents; court discusses but its ratio not controlling for the decision here.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Shibu S. et al. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2007 / 27TH ASHADHA 1929** **WP(C).No. 28024 of 2004(J)** **---------------------------------------** **PETITIONERS;** - **---------------------** **1. SHIBU. S., P.C. Q.4517, SAKTHIKULNAGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **2. CHANDRA BABU, P.C.Q.4516, CHANDAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **3. THYAGARAJAN, P.C.Q.3943, KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **4. SREEKUMAR, P.C.Q.4078, OCHIRA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **5. SATHEESAN PILLAI, P.C.Q.3865, THENNALA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **6. GANGADHARAN PILLAI, P.C.Q.3897, PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **7. SASIDHARAN, P.C.Q.3895, THENMALA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **8. SURESH KUMAR, P.C.Q.3927, PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **9. JOHNSON DANIEL, P.C.Q.4575, VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOLLAM.** **10. RADHAKRISHNAN PILLAI, P.C.Q.3858, EZHUKONE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **11. RAJENDRAN, P.C.Q.3861, KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **..2/-** **....2....** ## **WPC.NO.28024/2004 J** **12. SREEKUMAR, P.C.Q.4331, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **13. RADHAKRISHNAN, P.C.Q.4518, TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **14. RAJENDRAN, P.C.Q.3898, PALLITHOTTAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **15. SIVAPRASAD, P.C.Q.3931, SBCID, KOLLAM.** **16. REGHUNATHAN UNNITHAN, P.C.Q.3922, V.A.C.B., KOLLAM.** **17. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, P.C.Q.3915, ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **18. DOMANIC, P.C.Q.3917, KARUNAGAPLLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **19. RAJU, P.C.Q.3909, KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **20. SUNIL, P.C.Q.4523, PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **21. ASOKAN, P.C.Q.4544, KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** **22. UDYAKUMAR, P.C.Q.4619, KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.** - **BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.P.A.NOOR MUHAMMED** **..3/-** **..3...** ## **WPC.NO.28024/2004 J** **RESPONDENTS:** **-------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE SECRETARY, FINANCE (PAY REVISION IMPLEMENTATION) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA STATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,** - **KOLLAM.** **BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FINANCE)SRI.N.MANOJKUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WPC.NO.28024/2004 J** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.234/99/HOME DTD.24/11/1999 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.** **EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.174/2000/HOME DTD. 18/07/2000 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.** **1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE SERVICE DETAILS OF THE PETITIONERS. EXT.R1(B); COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF G.O.(P) NO.3000/98/FIN. DTD. 25/11/1998.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** Kss ## K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.28024 of 2004-J --------------------------------- ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are Police Constables, working under the respondents. The Government issued Ext.P1 order dated 24.11.1999, ordering to grant Higher Grade to them, on completion of 10 years service. It was also ordered that the 10 years' Higher Grade will have effect from the date of effect of the last pay revision order issued as per G.O.(P) No.3000/98/Fin dated 25.11.98. Later, the Government issued Ext.P2 GO dated 18.7.2000, stating that the grade promotion granted under Ext.P1 can have retrospective effect only from 25.11.98. Before the issuance of Ext.P2, the petitioners were granted Higher Grade with retrospective effect from 1.3.1997. They were granted arrears of salary also. Now, as a result of Ext.P2, their pay will be reduced and recovery of the excess salary will also be made. So, this writ petition was filed, challenging Ext.P2. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, in which it is submitted that the 1998 pay revision does not have any particular date of effect. The revision of pay scales takes effect from 1.3.1997. The WP(C) No.28024/2004 : 2 : Higher Grade granted under the pay revision order takes effect from 25.11.1998. Various other clauses of the pay revision order takes effect from 1.11.1998, as evident from para 38 (a) of the said order. So, the respondents contend that the benefit concerned in this case being one relating to grant of Higher Grade, the date of effect of the pay revision in relation to that benefit is 25.11.1998. Therefore, Ext.P2 has been rightly issued, it is submitted. 3. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even assuming the stand of the respondents is correct, the recovery of excess salary paid to the petitioners is unjustified, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in **Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana** [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18] and **P.H.Reddy & Ors. v. N.T.R.D. & Ors.** [JT 2002(2) SC 483]. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, relied on two Division Bench decisions of this Court in **Santhakumari** **v. State of Kerala** [2005(4) KLT 649] and **State of Kerala v. Saiful Islam** [2006(1) KLT 619]. 4. I think the interpretation given in Ext.P2 regarding the date of WP(C) No.28024/2004 : 3 : effect of Ext.P1 is valid. In view of Ext.P2, the salary of the petitioners is liable to be revised and refixed. The only point that survives for decision is whether the excess amount paid to them from 1.3.1997 to the date of Ext.P2 could be recovered by the Government. I think, there cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding recovery of the excess amount paid. When the amount has been paid long ago and there is considerable delay in finding out the mistake and recovering the amount, the courts have held that recovery after such long periods is not justified. In this case, within one year of the issuance of Ext.P1, the mistake was detected and rectified by Ext.P2. Further, the Director General of Police was also not sure about the date of effect of Ext.P1 order. Therefore, he moved the Government for appropriate clarification, to avoid audit objection. Immediately on finding the irregularity in Ext.P1, Ext.P2 order was issued. The money drawn by the petitioners is public money. The Government are its custodian. It, as soon as the detection of the irregularity, has stepped in by issuing Ext.P2 order. Therefore, I feel that it is not just or proper to order that the petitioners should be allowed to retain the amount paid to them in excess. WP(C) No.28024/2004 : 4 : But, it is ordered that the amount shall be recovered in easy monthly instalments without any interest. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. **K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.** 18[th] July, 2007. nm.