Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

N.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


N.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP v. STATE OF KERALA - OP No. 8563 of 1999(T) [2007] RD-KL 5834 (21 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 8563 of 1999(T)

1. N.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :21/03/2007

O R D E R

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.


===============
O.P NO. 8563 OF 1999
=================

Dated this the 21st day of March, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, was an High School Assistant in Government service till his retirement on 30/6/98. His grievance is against the proposal to recover Rs.18,393/-, which is stated to be the excess paid to him during his service. As already noted, his retirement was on 30/6/98 and Ext.P8 issued by the Headmistress of the School addressed to the Accountant General was on 17/7/98. Obviously, therefore, as on the date of Ext.P8, the petitioner was a retired employee and thus what governs recovery from him is Rule 3(c) of Part 3 of K.S.R, which permits recovery of excess payments made to an officer by mistake within a period of four years preceding his retirement. In so far as this case is concerned, it is seen that the amount sought to be recovered is alleged to have been received by the petitioner during the period from 1972 to 1998. Obviously, therefore, applying the provisions of Rule 3(c) supra, the recovery has to be confined to a period of four years from the date of retirement of the petitioner and no OP 8563/99 recovery can be effected for the period preceding thereto. Even otherwise, I see no justification to permit recovery from a retired employee and that too a benefit which he has receiving twenty six years prior to his retirement.

2. Be that as it may, applying the provisions to Rule 3(c), I direct that recovery from the petitioner can only be the excess monetary component that the petitioner has received only for the period of four years prior to 30/6/98, the date on which the petitioner has retired from service.

3. The respondents shall take steps for quantification of the amount that is to be recovered for the aforesaid period, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. After effecting recovery of the aforesaid amount, the balance amount that is due to the petitioner shall be disbursed forthwith thereafter. Original petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Rp


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.