JUDGMENT : The reach, bounds and operational amplitude of the power of the Government to recover amounts from the Manager of aided schools in Kerala under Rule 7(4) of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules is called into attention once again in this writ petition. 2. One among the writ petitions, namely W.P. (C).No.33833/2010, has been filed by the Manager of an Aided School, who impugns the order issued by the competent Authorities directing action against him under Rule 7(4) of KER, which contains an allegation that he had, in defiance of the lawful orders issued by the Authorities, appointed an incompetent person into the post of HSA in the school, disregarding a better claim of another teacher by name Smt.Sheejadharan. 3. The petitioner's contention is that unless the authorities are able to demonstrate that his actions, even if it is found to be improper or illegal, has occasioned actual loss to the Government, then no action under Rule 7(4) of KER can be legally pursued or concluded against him. His assertion in this writ petition is that even if all the allegations against him are taken as being true, it would only show that he had preferred an ineligible teacher, but not that, on account of this, the Government had suffered any loss, because as regards as Smt.Sheejadharan, the teacher found eligible by the Authorities is concerned, the Government itself, by a subsequent order, had denied her the pay and allowances during the period which the ineligible teacher had worked. 4. In its crux thus, the contention of the petitioner is that since the Government is not required to offer pay and allowances to both the teachers for the period in question, but only to one among them, which they are in any event liable to do, no action under Rule 7(4) of KER is justified, since the Government suffered no loss. 5. Before I consider the legal issues impelled by the petitioner, I feel it appropriate to record the most necessary details as under. 6. I am considering these writ petitions together since the substratum of the averments and allegations in these two are interlaced with each other and the relief in one will depend on the relief granted in the other. 7. 6. I am considering these writ petitions together since the substratum of the averments and allegations in these two are interlaced with each other and the relief in one will depend on the relief granted in the other. 7. W.P.(C).No.33833 of 2010 has been filed by the Manager of Kottappuram High School, South Paravoor, Kollam impugning that part of the order of the Government, dated 04.07.2007, directing that action under Rule 7 (4) of Chapter III of the KER be invoked against him to recover certain sums, allegedly lost to the Government. W.P.(C).No.34705 of 2009 has been filed by a teacher by name Smt.Sheejadharan, who impugns the order of the Government, dated 18.02.2008, a copy of which has been appended to the said writ petition as Ext.P7, as per which she has been denied increments, higher grade and re-option for certain specific reasons. 8. The reason that led to the orders to be issued by the Government has its genesis in the fact that the manager of the school appointed a person, namely Sri.J.Rajagopal, in two spells as HSA (Hindi) between 26.09.1997 to 18.12.1997 and from 24.06.1998 to 05.06.2001 on the assertion that he is a Rule 51A claimant. However, this appointment was challenged by Smt.Sheejadharan, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C).No.34705 of 2009, on the claim that she holds a preferential and higher right under Rule 43 of the KER and this claim was upheld by the Government, which led to Ext.P3 order in W.P.(C).No.33833 of 2010 being issued, whereby the Secretary to the Government of Kerala directed the concerned Educational Officers to give salary to Sri.Rajagopal for this period since he had actually worked as an HSA during that period, but with a consequential direction to recover the same from the manager under the provisions of Rule 7(4) of Chapter III of the KER. 9. As far as W.P.(C).No.34705 of 2009 is concerned, Smt.Sheejadharan, on the basis of the aforementioned Government Order which is also shown as Ext.P3 in her writ petition, sought for the benefits of re-fixation, increments and time bound higher grade promotion on the ground that she is entitled to be reckoned as HSA even during the periods aforementioned, which was, however, dismissed by the competent authority through Ext.P7 order. This was done because against the aforementioned Ext.P3 order, the Government of Kerala was approached by the then Manager of the school through a representation which the Government directed the DEO to consider and pass orders. In obedience to this the DEO issued an order dated 23.01.2008, a copy of which has been appended to both these writ petitions as Ext.P5, wherein following directions were issued. “In the above circumstances, the service of Smt.Sheejadharan for the period from 26.09.97 to 18.12.97 and from 01.06.98 to 05.06.01 as H.S.A (Hindi) is regularized as duty for all service benefits except pay and allowances. The Headmaster is directed to make necessary entries to the effect in the Service Book of Smt.Sheejadharan under proper attestation.” 10. The contention of the Manager of the school is that since Smt.Sheejadharan has been denied the pay and allowances of an HSA for the period from 26.09.97 to 18.12.97 and from 24.06.98 to 5.6.01, there is no question of any monetary loss to the Government and therefore, that under Rule 7(4) of Chapter III of the KER no recovery can be ordered from the Manager. Since the entire edifice of this submission is built by the Manager on the prescription of this Rule, I deem it appropriate to extract it as under to enable a full reading of it: “(4) In the case of a Manager who commits serious irregularities causing monetary loss to teachers/Government, the loss sustained by teachers/Government shall be recoverable from the Manager under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force as if it is an arrear of public revenue due on land, in the following cases namely- (a) Denial of appointment to a qualified thrown out teacher who has a rightful claim for reappointment by virtue of his/her holding the post earlier under rule 51A Chapter XIVA. (b) Denial of promotion to a teacher to any higher grade of pay under rules 43, 43B or 43C, as the case may be, of Chapter XIV A, or denial of promotion to the senior-most rightful claimant to the post of Headmaster under rules 44 or 445A, as the case may be, of Chapter XIV-A, when the post becomes vacant disobeying the directions from the department and /or Government, causing denial of all monetary benefits which he/she would have got had the promotion been effected as per rules in time. (c) Suspension of teachers, framing cooked up and/or frivolous charges, keeping them out of service beyond fifteen days disobeying the orders of re-reinstatement of such incumbents passed by the Deputy Director (Education) or by the Educational officer concerned, as the case may be, after a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension under sub-rule (8) of rule 67, Chapter XIV-A, depriving such incumbents of their salary for which they would have been entitled to had they been reinstated by the Manager in compliance of the orders issued by the officer concerned. (d) Making of irregular appointments and getting them approved by the Educational Officers concerned by furnishing false information declaration by the Managers regarding the claimants, under Rule 51A. Chapter XIV A.” 11. Inviting my attention to the above Rule, the specific legal contention of Sri.R.Reji, the learned counsel for the Manager is that under Rule 7(4), it is only if the Manager causes monetary loss to the teacher/Government that any recovery can be ordered against him. This submission of the Manager of the school voiced through his counsel, Sri.R.Reji, merits cogitation because, going by the tenor of Ext.P5 order extracted above, Smt.Sheejadharan's service has been regularized for the periods in question with all service benefits except pay and allowances. This is to say that for the periods in question only Sri.Rajagopal will be paid pay and allowances, though Smt.Sheejadharan has been found eligible to be considered as HSA during that periods but without the attendant pay and allowances. 12. In effect, the Government does not now require to pay salary and allowances for these periods to both the teachers but only to Sri.Rajagopal. Viewed from that angle, the submission of Sri.R.Reji that no action is now possible against the Manager under Rule 7(4), at least until such time as Ext.P5 order continues to be in force, appears to be tenable in law, because, as is perspicuous from the way the Rule is drafted, it is only when the Government suffers monetary loss, does it obtain the statutory locus to recover it from the Manager. 13. 13. Since the impugned order does not even say, much less demonstrate, that the Government has suffered any monetary loss on account of the alleged irregular action of the Manager and since Rule 7(4) of the KER makes it ineluctable that it is only in the case of a monetary loss having been suffered by the Government, on account of the action of the Manager who commits serious irregularity, can the Government initiate proceedings to recover such loss, I find substantial force in the submissions of Sri.R.Reji. 14. The learned Government Pleader, however, in opposition to the submissions of Sri.Reji, asserts that even though the Government has not suffered any monetary loss as of now, it is certainly possible that if Smt.Sreejadharan succeeds in having Exhibit P5 set aside at any time in the future, the Government would suffer certain loss, because then they would be compelled to pay salary to her also. The anxiety of the learned Government Pleader as afore can by no means be brushed aside and I am also in affirmation that if Smt.Sreejadharan is able to obtain orders in her favour for payment of salary to her for the relevant period, then the position would be totally different. If the Government is compelled through legally valid orders or processes to pay salary for the relevant period to Smt.Sreejadharan also, then it would certainly amount to a situation where loss has been caused to them. In that situation and event, it is indubitable that the Government would obtain jurisdiction under Rule 7(4) of the KER to recover such loss from the Manager. 15. However, that being said, until such time as a loss is actually caused to the Government, it would not be justified or permissible for the educational Authorities to initiate proceedings against the Manager under Rule 7(4) for recovery of the amounts that may end up as a loss to the Government in future. Going by the specific tenor of Rule 7(4), recovery can be ordered only if monetary loss has already been occasioned but not with regard to a loss which is anticipated in future. Going by the specific tenor of Rule 7(4), recovery can be ordered only if monetary loss has already been occasioned but not with regard to a loss which is anticipated in future. In such view, as long as Exhibit P5 continues to hold the field, Government would be under no obligation to pay salary or allowances to Smt.Sreejadharan and therefore, would not be subjected to any loss, thus incapacitating them, at least until Exhibit P5 is set aside, in making any recovery against the Manager of the School. 16. The position in law being indubitably as above, it is pertinent that as regards Smt.Sheejadhran is concerned, in her writ petition, namely W.P.(C).No.34705 of 2009, there is no challenge to Ext.P5 order thus indicating that she has accepted the directions contained in it to regularize her services for the period shown therein, but without the ancillary pay and allowances. Her request in Ext.P6, which is a representation made to the DEO Kollam, is also only to reckon the periods in question as regular service and to give her increments, time bound higher grade and an opportunity to re-opt for the 2004 pay revision. 17. Seen thus, it is luculent that the DEO, Kollam has not understood the true import of Ext.P5 order, which denies the actual pay and allowances to Smt.Sheejadharan for the periods mentioned therein, though expressly providing that all other service benefits be made available to her. Going by the express words in Ext.P5, I am unable to understand how, the benefits requested by the petitioner in Exhibit P6 representation has been rejected. Further, merely because, in Ext.P5, Smt.Sheejadharan has been declined the pay and allowances for the periods in question, it cannot be held that she is not eligible for the pay scale in the post of HSA, when the same order grants her all other service benefits in that post. There is a distinction between actual payment of pay and allowances and her entitlement to be in the pay scale, which has been unfortunately lost sight of by the authorities while issuing Exts.P7 and P9 orders. 18. There is a distinction between actual payment of pay and allowances and her entitlement to be in the pay scale, which has been unfortunately lost sight of by the authorities while issuing Exts.P7 and P9 orders. 18. I am, therefore, certain in my view that the stand adopted in Ext.P7 is not deserving of being sustained in law and that the said Authority is enjoined to consider Ext.P6 request as per law, taking into account the fact that Ext.P5 order grants her all benefits during the periods in question. 19. I also notice that even though the petitioner, Smt.Sheejadharan, approached the Government by a representation, dated 24.04.2008, against Ext.P7, that was also rejected through Ext.P9 order holding that only the service reckoned for normal increments can be treated as qualifying service for granting higher grades in the post of HSA. In the said order the Government has concluded that since the petitioner is not eligible for pay and allowances in the time scale attached to the post of HSA during the periods in question and since she had received pay and allowances during such periods only in the scale of UPSA, it cannot be reckoned as periods of duty as HSA for reckoning increments. As I have already held above, these findings in Ext.P9 also cannot stand scrutiny of law because, as is clear from Exts.P3 and P5, the durations from 26.09.1997 to 18.12.1997 and from 24.06.1998 to 05.06.2001, have been ordered to be regularized in the post of HSA (Hindi) for all service benefits, even though the actual pay and allowances were declined. Hence, I am of the certain view that Ext.P9 also can find no support or favour in law. 20. In the result: (a) I order W.P.(C).No.33833 of 2010 and direct the Government not to initiate any action against the Manager for recovery of the amount paid to Sri.Rajagopal under Rule 7(4) of Chapter III of the KER, as long as Ext.P5 order dated 23.01.2008 remains in force. (b) I make it clear that if for any reason, this order is set aside or varied or modified in the future, thus compelling the Government to make payment to Smt.Sheejadharan also, then evidently the Government will be entitled to recover the pay and allowances paid to Sri.Rajagopal as per the directions in Ext.P3. However, as long as Ext.P5 remains in force, such action will stand deferred. However, as long as Ext.P5 remains in force, such action will stand deferred. (c) W.P.(C).No.34705 of 2009 is allowed and Exts.P7 and P9 stand quashed. Consequently, the DEO, Kollam, the 3rd respondent therein, is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner made in Ext.P6 in its proper perspective, adverting specifically to Exts.P3 and P5 orders and pass consequential orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.