Retrospective recovery of pay in educational employment must comply with established norms and is temporarily deferred pending reconsideration of revision petitions.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is presently working as H.S.T Sanskrit with Full-Time benefit in Devamatha High School, Paisakari. The petitioner entered service as L.G. Sanskrit Teacher (Part-Time) with effect from 01.06.2010 onwards. On completion of 5 years part time continuous service from 01.06.2010, the petitioner was granted Full-Time benefit with effect from 01.06.2015. Thereafter, she was promoted to the post of H.S.T. Sanskrit (Part-time) from 08.06.2015 and her pay was fixed in the said post in the scale of Rs.25,200/-.

2. However, after 9 years of its fixation, the 2^nd respondent has objected the same and issued Ext.P6 audit report objecting the initial sanction of Full-Time benefit and subsequent fixation of pay in H.S.T under Rule 28A Part I KSR holding that the fixation of pay is against G.O(MS)No.4/95/G.Edn dated 04.01.1995. According to the petitioner, the Full-Time benefit sanctioned by the Department and pay fixed in the higher post under Rule 28A Part I KSR are legally valid and justifiable.

3. The petitioner submits that if the promotion is from a Part-Time post to another Part-Time post with a different salary scale, the pay fixation generally ensures that new basic pay is not less than the previous basic pay plus one increment. In this case, the petitioner was promoted to the post of H.S.T Sanskrit after getting Full-Time benefit. Therefore, her scale of pay fixed by the Educational Officer is legally valid. Now, recovery has been ordered in Ext.P6 by the 2^nd respondent after 9 years of its fixation, which is illegal and cannot be permitted to be recovered from a Class III employee at this stage, especially when the excess amount allegedly drawn by the petitioner might be more than Rs.7 lakhs.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4.

5. Against Exts.P4 and P6 orders, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P5 revision petition and P7 representation. In the facts of the case, I am of the view that Exts.P5 and P7 can be considered by the respondents in accordance with law within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Exts.P5 and P7 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till a decision is taken by the 1^st respondent, coercive proceedings as against the petitioner, if any, pursuant to Exts.P4 and P6 orders shall stand deferred.

Sd/-