High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
V.N. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR v. THE GENERAL MANAGER - WP(C) No. 3421 of 2004(G)  RD-KL 806 (19 September 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 3421 of 2004(G)
1. V.N.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
2. THE REGISTER OF CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,SC, ALP.DIST.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN
O R D E R
K.THANKAPPAN, J.W.P.(C)NO. 3421 OF 2004
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2006
The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 intimation and Ext.P3 order issued by respondents 1 and 2 respectively. By Ext.P3, the second respondent - Registrar of Co-operative Societies directed the Bank to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner due to the wrong promotion given to him and the pay scale fixed on promotion.
2. The petitioner joined the service of the first respondent - Bank as Typist on 15.11.1966 and on 1.8.1972, he was appointed as Steno Typist . He was subsequently promoted to the post of Junior Accountant on 1.7.1978 and Senior Accountant on 1.10.1988. Thereafter, the petitioner was given higher grade benefit of III grade equal to the promotion post of Branch Manager with effect from 1.7.1996 and his basic pay was fixed at Rs.4925/-. While so, the first respondent - Bank as per Ext.P2 communication informed the petitioner that his promotion as Senior Accountant and Branch Manager and the pay scales fixed were irregular as W.P.(C)NO.3421/2004 2 the petitioner did not possess the required qualification and he was directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,68,116/-.
3. The petitioner has already retired from service. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that both Exts.P2 and P3 are arbitrary and illegal. Counsel further submits that the second respondent issued Ext.P3 without giving the petitioner an opportunity to explain his case. It is the further case of the petitioner that the promotions were effected in 1988 and 1996 and Ext.P3 is issued only on 3.7.2003 and that the mistake committed was not due to the fault of the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that no objection was raised even though annual audits were conducted. Hence, according to the petitioner, Exts.P2 and P3 are not sustainable.
4. A counter affidavit is filed for and on behalf of the first respondent - Bank. Relying on the counter affidavit, learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that the pay of the petitioner on promotion was revised on the basis of the undertaking given by the petitioner that he shall refund the excess amount, if any, drawn by him. W.P.(C)NO.3421/2004 3
5. Admittedly, the petitioner entered service as Typist on 15.11.1966 and considering the work done by him, he was appointed as Steno Typist. When a vacancy of Junior Accountant arose, the petitioner was promoted to that post and his pay was refixed and grade promotions were also effected. Now, as per Ext.P3, the second respondent found that the promotions given to the petitioner were irregular as the petitioner did not possess the required qualification. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had worked in different posts and the first respondent was satisfied with his work. The delay caused in pointing out the mistake is not due to any fault of the petitioner. Further, while passing Ext.P3 order, the petitioner was not heard. In the above circumstances, Exts.P2 and P3 are quashed and there will be a direction to the second respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 order and take a decision as early as possible, at any rate within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Writ Petition is allowed as above.
(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)sp/ W.P.(C)NO.3421/2004 4
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.