Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2329 (KER)

T. K. Manjusha v. State Of Kerala

2025-08-26

VIJU ABRAHAM

body2025
JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P8 proceedings and for a consequential direction to the 4 th respondent, DEO to disburse the salary and allowances withheld from July 2017 till April 2019 to the petitioner for her service as HSA(Malayalam) in the Higher Secondary School, Mundur. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is presently working as High School Teacher (Malayalam), in the aided Higher Secondary School, Mundur and she was appointed by the 5 th respondent, Manager on 01.06.2015 as HSA(Malayalam), which is approved by the 4 th respondent, DEO as per Ext.P1 order dated 01.07.2016. On 01.06.2016, one K.R.Ratheesh, another High School Teacher(Malayalam) in the Higher Secondary School, Mundur, resigned from the post and the Manager appointed one Greeshma Raj as HSA(Malayalam) against the said resignation vacancy on 01.06.2016, which was also approved by the 4 th respondent, DEO. Later, Smt.Greeshma Raj also resigned from the post of HSA(Malayalam) on 11.12.2017. The 4th respondent, DEO as per Ext.P2 communication, informed the 5th respondent, Manager, that permission has been sought to revise the Staff Fixation Order for 2015-2016, alleging a mistake in sanctioning the post of HSA(Malayalam) in the school and directed to withhold the salary of the petitioner as well as Smt.Greeshma Raj. Based on Ext.P2, the 3rd respondent, DDE issued Ext.P3 proceedings, directing the 4 th respondent DEO to revise the Staff Fixation Order for 2015- 2016 of Higher Secondary School, Mundur, and directed the 5 th respondent-Manager to take steps for recovery of the salary paid to the petitioner as well as Smt.Greeshma Raj, appointed as HSA(Malayalam) in the School, treating that no vacancy was available to make an appointment during the year 2015-2016 and that only one vacancy that arose is by a resignation during the year 2016-2017 in the school. The 5 th respondent, Manager, in compliance with Ext.P4, issued proceedings dated 29.12.2017, accepting the resignation of Smt.Greeshma Raj, with effect from 01.06.2016 and undertaking to remit back the salary paid her, and to accommodate the petitioner in the vacancy which arose by resignation on 01.06.2016, and to regularising her service, with consent to recover from the petitioner, the salary disbursed. Petitioner was not paid salary since July,2017 pursuant to Ext.P2 and aggrieved by the same, petitioner has approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.33538 of 2018 seeking a direction to the 2 nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 revision petition filed against Ext.P2 and to direct disbursement of salary to the petitioner. This Court, by Ext.P6 judgment, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 revision petition within a period of two months. Pursuant to the said direction, Ext.P7 order was issued directing to revise the sanction of the post of HSA(Malayalam) and to disburse the legitimate salary and allowances due to the petitioner. Later, petitioner was paid salary and allowances pursuant to Ext.P7 order only from 01.04.2019, whereas she is entitled to get arrears of salary due from July 2017 onwards. While so, the 4 th respondent issued Ext.P8 communication directing the 5th respondent and 6th respondent to remit back the salary disbursed to the petitioner during the period from 15.07.2015 till 01.06.2016 and to report compliance. It is in the said circumstance that the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4 th respondent, DEO, contending that at the time of staff fixation for the year 2017- 2018, it was found that one post of HSA(Malayalam) has been irregularly sanctioned w.e.f 2015-2016 and in rectification of the same, the Manager and the Headmaster was directed to withheld the salaries of the teachers, who were found excess. The DEO was directed to revise the staff fixation for the year 2015-2016 and to take steps to refund the excess salary paid to the teachers to the Government. As per the said direction, the Manager took appropriate action and the petitioner has been shifted to the resignation vacancy of Smt.Greeshma Raj, w.e.f 01.06.2016. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in WP(C) No.35538 of 2018, a hearing was conducted and an order was issued by the Director of General Education, as Ext.P5 order to revise the staff fixation and disburse the salary w.e.f 01.04.2019. But at the time of revising staff fixation orders, some more irregularities were found and therefore requested the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad, to inspect the staff fixation files. But at the time of revising staff fixation orders, some more irregularities were found and therefore requested the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad, to inspect the staff fixation files. On inspection, it was found that two posts, i.e, one High School Assistant(English) and one HSA(Social Science) were also sanctioned irregularly in staff fixation for the year 2015-2016 and the matter was reported by the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad to the Director General of Education as per Ext.R4(a). Thereafter, a hearing was conducted by the Director General of Education stating that the matter has been sent to the Vigilance Section of DPI and is awaiting orders from the DPI and further action on the revision of staff fixation will be taken on the receipt of orders from the DPI. Since, an anomaly was found in the staff fixation order, the Manager shifted the petitioner to the resignation vacancy of Smt.Greeshma Raj w.e.f 01.06.2016, and since there was a financial loss to the Government, the salary paid to the petitioner for the period from 15.07.2015 to 01.06.2016 should be refunded to the Government. The petitioner has also, as per Ext.R4(c) letter, expressed her willingness to refund the excess salary. It is further stated that further steps in the revision of staff fixation order, payment of salary w.e.f 01.07.2017 and the refund of excess salary will be taken up and when orders are received from the DPI. While the writ petition was pending consideration, proceedings were initiated by the DEO to take a final decision pursuant to Ext.P8 proceedings, which is stayed by this Court as per order dated 27.06.2025. 4. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides. 5. Admittedly, some anomalies were found in the staff fixation for the year 2015-2016 and as per the direction issued by the Educational authorities, the Manager has shifted the petitioner to the resignation vacancy of Smt.Greeshma Raj, HSA(Malayala) w.e.f. 01.06.2016. 6. The case of the 4th respondent in the counter affidavit is that the salary paid to the petitioner for the period from 15.07.2015 to 01.06.2016 should be refunded to the Government, and the petitioner has, as per Ext.R4(c), expressed her willingness to refund the excess salary for the said period. 6. The case of the 4th respondent in the counter affidavit is that the salary paid to the petitioner for the period from 15.07.2015 to 01.06.2016 should be refunded to the Government, and the petitioner has, as per Ext.R4(c), expressed her willingness to refund the excess salary for the said period. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that though the decision was to refund the salary of the petitioner only for the period from 15.07.2015 to 01.06.2016, and the petitioner has expressed her willingness as per Ext.R4(c) to refund the excess salary for the said period, she has been paid the salary pursuant to Ext.P7 only from 01.04.2019, whereas she is entitled to get the arrears of salary from 01.06.2016. The reason for non-disbursement of salary over and above the period between 15.07.2015 to 01.06.2016 is not discernible from the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent. It is seen that Ext.P9 proceedings were issued by the 4 th respondent addressed to the Manager, Headmaster of the school, as well as the petitioner herein, wherein steps were taken by the DEO to take a final decision on the payment of the salary, etc, due to the petitioner. Ext.P7 order issued by the 2 nd respondent wherein direction was issued to the DEO to re-fix the post of the petitioner and to pay all eligible monetary benefits to the petitioner. Probably, it is in compliance with the same that Exts.P7 and P8 has been been issued. Even going by the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent, the contention of the Government is that the salary paid to the petitioner for the period from 15.07.2015 to 01.06.2016 should be refunded to the Government. The post in which the petitioner was appointed was found to be in excess, and the Manager has shifted the petitioner to the resignation vacancy of smt.Greeshma Raj w.e.f 01.06.2016. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is for the 4th respondent, DEO to finalise the proceedings on the basis of Ext.P7 order issued by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the above writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to finalise the proceedings in respect of the petitioner without any delay, and pay the salary and allowances legally due to the petitioner without any delay. Therefore, the above writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to finalise the proceedings in respect of the petitioner without any delay, and pay the salary and allowances legally due to the petitioner without any delay. It is made clear that the petitioner will be bound by the undertaking given in Ext.R4(c) regarding the refund of the salary for the period from 15.07.2015 to 01.06.2016. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the 4 th respondent, DEO, without any delay, at any rate, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6. Till a decision is taken as directed above, the recovery of the amount evidenced by Ext.P8 shall be kept in abeyance.