High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
DR.P.P.BALAKRISHNAN, PROFESSOR AND v. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY - OP No. 39468 of 2002(W)  RD-KL 5757 (21 March 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMOP No. 39468 of 2002(W)
1. DR.P.P.BALAKRISHNAN, PROFESSOR AND
1. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KERALA
For Petitioner :K P KYLASANATHA PILLAY
For Respondent :SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, AGRL.UNTY.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
O.P NO. 39468 OF 2002
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2007
J U D G M E N T
By Ext.P1 order dated 16/11/1993, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Kerala Agricultural University, the first respondent in this original petition. Subsequently, by Ext.P3 order dated 8/8/96, along with three others, petitioner was promoted as Cadre Professor w.e.f. 25/3/86. The promotion of the petitioner and others by Ext.P3 was challenged before this Court in OP 6679/97, which was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment dated 29/9/2000, setting aside the same. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was appealed by the affected parties including the petitioner and the same was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in WA 2562/2000 as per Ext.P5 judgment. In the meanwhile, by Ext.P10 order dated 3/5/01, the petitioner was reverted as Associate Professor w.e.f. 25/3/86. It is also stated that the reversion as per Ext.P10 was confirmed by Ext.P11 order dated 29/10/2002 and according to the petitioner on that date itself, as against a direct recruitment vacancy, the OP 39468/2002 petitioner got selected as Professor and was appointed by the same University.
2. It was subsequent to this, that by Ext.P13, revised pay slip for the previous period had been issued to the petitioner and excess drawn by him for the period upto his reversion was sought to be recovered from the petitioner consequent upon the erroneous promotion that was enjoyed by him. It is seeking to challenge the recovery so proposed by Ext.P13 and other reliefs that this Original Petition has been filed.
3. At this distance of time, the only issue that survives for consideration is the correctness of the recovery proposed from the petitioner's salary as per Ext.P13. It is a fact that the University, along with three others promoted the petitioner by Ext.P3 order dated 8/8/96. Although this Court had in Ext.P4 judgment set aside the promotion and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench in Ext.P5 judgment, the actual reversion of the petitioner took place much later only following Exts. P10 and P11. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was made to work as Professor following the promotion that was granted by Ext.P3. Thus the fact remains that the petitioner actually worked as OP 39468/2002 Professor and he cannot be now made liable for the recovery of whatever salary that has been paid to him for the post that was held by the petitioner and the work that was done during the period.
4. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit in this case. On the materials on record, I am not in a position to say that the petitioner has contributed in any manner for the erroneous promotion that was granted to him. In the circumstances, recovery at this distance of time will be too onerous. In the aforesaid circumstances, I see no justification to permit recovery of the salary paid to the petitioner during the period when he held the post of Professor following the promotion that was granted to him by Ext.P3. For that reason, I quash Ext.P13 to the extent recovery was sought to be effected from the petitioner. The Original Petition will stand allowed to that extent.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.Rp
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.