High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2010-06-25Writ petition disposed of with directions as st...

V.P. Chandran, V.K. Balan, Janardhanan K., K.P. Balakrishnan Pillai, and K.M. Velayudhan v. Deputy Director of Education Kozhikode; Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram; State of Kerala; Accountant General (Audit) Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.20351/2009(L)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2010-06-25
Court Decision / Holding: Writ Petition disposed of; Exts. P4 and P6 not interfered with; Ext.P7 order set aside; and there will be a direction not to recover excess payment arising from pay fixation as per GO (P) No. 3000/98/Fin dated 25.11.1998.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions as stated above; Ext.P7 set aside; Exts. P4 and P6 not interfered; recovery of excess payments directed not to be pursued in light of related decisions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V.P. Chandran
V.K. Balan
Janardhanan K.
K.P. Balakrishnan Pillai
K.M. Velayudhan

Respondents

Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode
Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram
State of Kerala, rep. by Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Accountant General (Audit)-Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Dr. George Abraham

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader Sri. S. Kumar K.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition was filed by five teaching staff challenging pay fixation and service weightage for their aided school service. The petitioners sought quashing Exts. P4, P6 and P7, and requested a declaration that they are entitled to count their service in aided schools for the weightage contemplated by Government Order (G.O. (P) 3000/98/Fin) dated 25 November 1998. The learned counsel advanced that weightage has been conferred by these orders in certain circumstances, and relied on decisions of the Supreme Court in Registrar of Co-operative Societies v Israil Khan and Syed Abdul Qadir v State of Bihar, as well as this Court’s own W.P.(C). No. 17055/2005 (judgment dated 21 December 2009), which directed not to recover excess payment. The court, however, framed the issue against the petitioners, holding that the pay revision order does not specifically include a service for weightage; hence such weightage cannot be counted for benefits, following the dictum in W.A. No. 288/2005 and connected matters. The court also held that reliance on state government orders and the apex court decisions does not alter the position. Consequently, the relief to count weightage was refused, but with a direction that recovery of excess payment should not be pursued in light of the 21 December 2009 ruling, and the Exts P4 and P6 were not interfered with, while Ext P7 was set aside. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Applicants contend that their service as teachers in aided institutions must be recognized for service weightage under Government Order (G.O. (P) 3000/98/Fin) dated 25 November 1998 and related government orders. They rely on Exts. P1–P2 and P3, as well as decisions of the Supreme Court in Registrar of Co-operative Societies v Israil Khan and Syed Abdul Qadir v State of Bihar, and on this Court’s decision in W.P.(C). No. 17055/2005 (21 December 2009), arguing for weightage and non-recovery of sums already paid. They challenge Exts. P4, P6, and P7 as contrary to their rights and seek a declaration of entitlement to service weightage. They contend that the law and policy should be interpreted in light of the cited decisions, and seek quashing of the impugned orders and protection against recovery of overpaid amounts.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that pay revision orders do not specifically include service weightage; without express inclusion, weightage cannot be granted. They rely on this Court’s earlier decision in W.A. 288/2005 and connected matters and insist that Exts. P4 and P6 are valid, with Ext. P7 being incorrectly fixation. They argue that the relief to count weightage is not warranted and that any excess payments can be recovered in accordance with law, except where the Court directs otherwise in light of established precedents.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
W.A. No. 288/2005 and connected matters	W.A.No.288/2005	Positive	Court relies on this judgment’s principle that weightage cannot be granted unless specifically included in the pay revision order.
Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. Israil Khan	2009 (4) KLT 61	Positive	Cited as apex court decisions supporting the dictum on service weightage and related relief.
Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar	2009(3) SCC 475	Positive	Cited as apex court decision supporting the proposition on weightage and pay fixation.
W.P.(C).No.17055/2005	W.P.(C).No.17055/2005	Positive	This Court’s earlier decision repelled relief for counting service weightage and directed not to recover excess payment; followed by the present judgment.

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 V.P. Chandran, V.K. Balan, Janardhanan K., K.P. Balakrishnan Pillai, and K.M. Velayudhan v. Deputy Director of Education Kozhikode; Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram; State of Kerala; Accountant General (Audit) Kerala 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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20351 of 2009(L) -------------------------- ## PETITIONER(S): ## --------------- 1. V.P.CHANDRAN, AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.CHATHUKUTTY NAIR, HEADMASTER,GOVERNMENT U.P.SCHOOL, THIRUVANOOR,CALICUT-29 AND RESIDING AT AVILERI HOUSE, CHEVAYOOR P.O.,CALICUT 17. ## 2. V.K.BALAN, AGED 52 YEARS,S/O.KELAPPAN, HEADMASTER,GOVERNMENT U.P.SCHOOL, VENGAPATTA,MENHANLAM P.O.,PERAMBRA,KOZHIKODE. AND RESIDING AT VAYALALIKKARA HOUSE, PERAMBRA P.O.,KOZHIKODE. 3. JANARDHANAN K., AGED 52 YEARS,S/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, HEADMASTER,GOVERNMENT L.P.SCHOOL,PUTTAD, CHENOLI P.O.,PERAMBRA,KOZHIKODE. AND RESIDING AT NAMBITHOOR HOUSE, MENHANNIUM P.O.,PERAMBRA,KOZHIKODE. 4. K.P.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 54 YEARS,S/O.K.P.NAIR, HEADMASTER,GOVERNMENT GIRLS'H.S.S., KOYILANDY P.O.,KOZHIKODE. AND RESIDING AT 33/2511-B,N.G.O.QUARTERS, MARIKKUNNU P.O.,KOZHIKODE. 5. K.M.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 53 YEARS,S/O.CHOYIKUTTY, ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,KUNNAMANGALAM, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O.,KOZHIKODE. AND RESIDING AT 'SREE NILAYAM', CHEVAYOOR P.O.,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM ## RESPONDENT(S): ## --------------- ## 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, - KOZHIKODE. ## 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ## 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ## 4. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT)-KERALA, - P.B.NO.5608,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANAL KUMAR K.,FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## W.P.(C).NO. 20351/2009 ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: - P1: True copy of Government Order, G.O(P)No.1480/99/Fin. Dated 17.6.1999. - P2: True copy of Government Order, G.O(P)No.990/2000/Fin. Dated 27.6.2000. - P3: True copy of representation submitted by the 1[st] petitioner. P4: True copy of the Audit Objection dated 26.2.2003 issued by the 4[th] respondent. - P5: True copy of the judgment 17.8.2007 in Writ Petition W.P.(C).NO. 19950/2004. - P6: True copy of the order of the Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode dated 30.12.2008. - P7: True copy of the communication dated 10.2.2009 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode. ## RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: Nil ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** ## **-------------------------------------------W.P.(C). NO.20351 OF 2009** ## **--------------------------------------------** Dated this the 25[th] day of June, 2010 ## **JUDGMENT** This Writ Petition has been filed mainly with the following prayers _i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order_ _or direction to quash Exts.P4, P6 and P7 orders issued by the respondents;_ _ii) to declare that the petitioners are entitled to get the service weightage reckoning their aided school services as per the provisions contained in government order G.O.(P)3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998._ The legal issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered against the petitioner by the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.288/2005 and connected matters. In paragraph 6 of the said judgment, it is held as follows: _“When the pay revision order does not specifically include a particular service for the purpose of weightage, it cannot be counted for granting the said benefits.”_ **W.P.(C) NO.20351/2009** 2 In the light of the same, the petitioners cannot claim that they are entitled for the service weightage. The further contention of the petitioners is that they are entitled to retain the amount received by them in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble apex court in _**Registrar of Co-perative Societies v. Israil Khan**_ **( 2009 (4) KLT 61)** and **Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar (2009(3) SCC 475)** . Similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C).No.17055/2005. As per the judgment dated 21.12.2009, this Court repelled the relief sought for counting the service weightage and at the same time, based on the aforesaid decisions, it was held: _“Therefore, I respectfully follow the dictum laid down_ _by the Apex Court in the two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner to quash Exts.P2, P9 and P10 is refused. But there will be a direction to the respondents not to effect recovery of excess payment received by the petitioner pursuant to the pay fixation as per Ext.P1.”_ The petitioners herein are similarly situated to the petitioners in W.P.(C). No.17055/2005. In the light of the judgment in W.A.No.288/2005 and connected matters and W.P.(C).No.17055/2005, I decline to interfere with Exts.P4 and P6 orders. However, in the light of the judgment dated **W.P.(C) NO.20351/2009** 3 21.12.2009 in W.P.(C).No.17055/2005 rendered relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble apex court in **2009(3) SCC 475** (supra) and _**2009(4) KLT 461**_ (supra), Ext.P7 order is set aside. There will be a further direction to the respondents not to effect recovery of excess payment received by the petitioners pursuant to pay fixation as per G.O.(P).No.3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. **(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)** ## **spc** **W.P.(C) NO.20351/2009** 4 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **W.P.(C). NO. /2010 JUDGMENT June, 2010** **W.P.(C) NO.20351/2009** 5