JUDGMENT : 1. The centroidal issue in these cases – as discernible from the factual grid and documents presented – is whether Teachers of Aided Colleges are entitled to be paid additional remuneration/fees for evaluating answer scripts of students. This issue has now sprung up for consideration by this Court because, such payments earlier made to the petitioners in these cases are now sought to be recovered. 2. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions – who aver similar, if not identical, facts and seek the same reliefs – are stated to be Teachers of Aided Colleges affiliated to the various Universities in Kerala. The proximate cause for them to have approached this Court is because the Government issued an order – a copy of which has been produced on record as Ext.P1 in WP(C)No.18499/2020 (it is also produced as an exhibit in all these cases) – directing that only 80% of the 4th instalment payable to them under the 6th UGC Pay Revision, be disbursed to them and 20% be withheld, so as to recover certain amounts earlier paid to them towards valuation of answer scripts. 3. The petitioners say that the afore order is egregiously improper because they were paid the amounts in question validly and without any demand being made by them at that time; and also because it was an additional duty cast upon them. They, therefore, pray that the afore order of the Government be quashed and its competent Authority be directed to disburse to them all amounts withheld, including through its subsequent order – a copy of which has been produced on record as Ext.P3 in WP(C)No.18499/2020. 4. I have heard Sri.M.S.Radhakrishnan Nair and Sri.Arun B. Varghese -learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases; Sri.Thomas Abraham – learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala University; Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the Calicut University; Sri.Surin George Iype – learned Standing Counsel for the MG University; Sri.I.V.Pramod – learned Standing Counsel for the Kannur University and Smt.Parvathy K. - learned Government Pleader. 5. As is perspicuous from the afore short narrative of the constitutive facts, the crucial issue in these cases is whether the petitioners were entitled to be paid any additional remuneration for having valued answer scripts. I, therefore, asked the various learned Standing Counsel for the Universities whether such payments were based on any orders/circulars validly issued. 5. As is perspicuous from the afore short narrative of the constitutive facts, the crucial issue in these cases is whether the petitioners were entitled to be paid any additional remuneration for having valued answer scripts. I, therefore, asked the various learned Standing Counsel for the Universities whether such payments were based on any orders/circulars validly issued. All of them answered to the negative; but, interestingly, were unable to inform this Court how such payments had been made. They explained that, perhaps, the petitioners were favoured with such payments on account of a wrong interpretation of the applicable Service Regulations; but all of them were adidemthat the recovery as ordered by the Government cannot be faulted. 6. In fact, the counter pleadings on record, filed by the State and the Universities, asserverate unequivocally that valuation of answer scripts is an integral part of the duties of the petitioners as teachers and therefore, that they could not have been paid anything in addition to their salary and other allowances. They also take an unambiguous position that, since such payments were made in error or under a mistaken notion, the petitioners cannot hold on to it, since it amounts to illegal and undue enrichment. The Government then further explains that the recovery was necessitated because the Accountant General took objection to it and therefore, that it has now become inevitable. 7. I must say that this Court is also of the firm opinion – in the absence of any statutory order or executive stipulation being shown – that, normally, a teacher of a College cannot seek to be paid additional remuneration for valuation of answer scripts. At the best, they can seek the disbursement of actual expenses, if any, but payment in the nature of a fee or remuneration for such purpose is indubitably impermissible. Of course, as said above, had there been any valid order – be that by the Government or by the Universities – authorizing such a payment, this Court could have taken a contrary view; but when the petitioners themselves are unable to inform this Court any such, there can be little doubt that payments accepted by them were unauthorised and undeserving. 8. 8. That being said, however, the sole corollary question relevant for my consideration, is whether the recovery – as now sought to be done of amounts which are admitted to have been paid to the petitioners and received by them more than six or eight years ago – can be permitted. The pleadings on record clearly indicate that the recovery has been ordered to be effected with respect to the amounts paid to the petitioners in the years 2008-2010. This issue has not been considered by the Government and they appear to have proceeded solely by the objections noted by the Accountant General. This consideration is necessary because, the amounts collected by the petitioners may have certainly been spent by them at the relevant time; and, therefore, to ask them to return the whole amount – albeit by adjusting it against their arrears under the UGC Revision – could have been ordered only after assessing this in its proper perspective. 9. I am certain, therefore, that the aspect as to whether the amounts – though being undeserved – ought to be recovered at this distance of time, must certainly engage the mind of the Government. Resultantly, I dispose of these Writ Petitions, declaring that the petitioners were not and are not legally entitled to be paid any amounts in addition to their salary and allowances for the purpose of evaluating answer scripts, which this Court certainly affirms to be part of their duties; however, with a direction to the competent Authority of the Government to first decide whether the recovery of the amounts paid as early as in the year 2008-2010 should and can be effected at this point of time, as has been attempted to be done through the impugned orders. This shall be done after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and to such other interested persons, as also to the officers concerned of the Universities, if they are so interested in offering their version; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, depending upon the decision to be taken as afore and if it is to be found that the recovery is not permissible solely because of the efflux of time, then necessary steps to disburse the said amounts to the petitioners shall be completed without any avoidable delay, but not later than two months thereafter.