JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that she retired from the services of “St.Pauls High School”, Veliyanadu, as Headmistress on 31.05.2016; but that when her pension papers and connected documents were sent to the office of the 3rd respondent – Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam (DDE), same were returned citing that there is an error in her pay fixation pertaining to the

2009 Pay Revision, with effect from 21.07.2011.

2. The petitioner says that, consequently, the 4th respondent was directed by the DDE to re-fix her salary and allowances and effect recovery of the alleged excess amount drawn with effect from 21.07.02011 and that this was done solely because 3rd respondent did not count her broken periods of service from 15.09.1992 to 19.03.1996 for weightage; and she alleges that, therefore, Ext.P2 Pay Fixation was erroneous. She further says that even though she submitted Ext.P4 explanation before the respondent, it was rejected even without giving her an opportunity of being heard, through Ext.P5 order; and she thus contends that both Exts.P3 and P5 are contrary to law and issued in violation of the judgments of this Court in Kadeeja.A vs. State of Kerala & Another [2014 (4) KLT 349], Lilly.V.A. vs. State of Kerala & others [2016 (2) KLT 649], Havvaumma.K.V. vs. State of Kerala & others [2016 (4) KLT 895], as also Exts.P6, P7 and P8 judgments.

3. The petitioner also has a case that the recovery sought to be made against her is contrary to the declarations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others vs. Rafiq Masih & others [(2015) 4 SCC 334] and she, therefore, prays that impugned orders be set aside.

4. Sri.Subhash Chand – learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that, in fact, pending this lis, certain recoveries were made against his client illegally; but that on account of her rather vulnerable position at that time, she was unable to object to the same. He then added that a learned Judge of this Court has already considered the issues identical to the ones projected in this case in Sabu Mathew & others vs. State of Kerala & others [2017(4) KLT 501], which has been confirmed by a learned Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala & others vs. Sabu Mathew & others [2019 (3) KHC 972], based on which, the Government came out with another order, bearing No.G.O.(MS) 401/2019/fin. Dated 28.10.2019, ordering that no recovery shall be made from any teacher in similar circumstances, who had retired before 01.08.2018. Sri.Subhash Chand submitted that since his client retired on 31.05.2016, she is fully entitled to the benefits of the said Government Order. He consequently prayed that Exts.P3 and P5 be set aside and the 3rd respondent – Deputy Director of Education be directed to issue appropriate orders granting the benefits of all broken service of the petitioner from the year 1987, thus re-fixing her pensionary benefits and to return to her the amounts already deducted. He prayed that this writ petition be ordered in such terms.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader –

Sri.P.M.Manoj, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submitted that since the petitioner is now relying upon G.O(M.S) No.401/2019/Fin. dated 28.10.2019, the matter will have to be reconsidered by the 3rd respondent, taking note of all her contentions, including the impact of the judgments in Sabu Mathew (supra). He prayed that this Court may, therefore, grant liberty to the 3rd respondent to do so, however, without making any declaration in her favour.

6. The afore submissions of Sri.Subhash Chand certainly are to the effect that petitioner is entitled to have broken periods of service from the year 1987 counted and to have her Pension Fixation orders re-fixed accordingly. His accusation against the respondent is that, pending this lis, an amount of Rs.31,081/- has been recovered and that this has been done illegally.

7. However, since, as rightly stated by the learned Senior Government Pleader, 3rd respondent had issued