Recovery from an employee erroneously promoted is impermissible if they fulfilled duties in good faith based on prior entitlements.

J U D G M E N T

The dispute in this writ petition is with reference to the coercive steps proposed to be taken against the petitioner on the basis of the findings contained in Ext.P7 proceedings of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 29.02.2016. The petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the Muvattupuzha Kothamangalam Primary Co-operative Bank on 01.11.2008, and was subsequently promoted as a Record Keeper on 06.06.2011. Later, pursuant to Ext.P3, the afore Bank was bifurcated into (i) Muvattupuzha Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank and (ii) Kothamangalam Taluk Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. Pursuant to Ext.P3(a), it is seen that the assets of the original bank were also bifurcated between the two banks established as above. In the meantime, the petitioner was promoted as a Junior Clerk with effect from 01.05.2012, pursuant to Ext.P4. Subsequently, pursuant to Ext.P5, she was promoted as a Senior Clerk with effect from 01.06.2017. However, the service conditions with reference to the employees of the Muvattupuzha Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank came to be addressed pursuant to the report at Ext.P6. In this report, it was found that though the petitioner had been promoted as a Junior Clerk with effect from 01.05.2012, as noticed earlier, there was no approved post of Junior Clerk in the Bank with reference to that date. It was further found that the post of Junior Clerk in the Muvattupuzha Bank was approved only on 29.02.2016 and, therefore, the petitioner requires to continue as a Record Keeper till that date. On the basis of this finding, Ext.P6 goes on to advice that the excess payments/salary disbursed to the petitioner till 29.02.2016 requires to be realised from her. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the captioned writ petition.

2. I have heard Sri.Tarun Philip, the learned counsel representing Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader, as well as Srii.P.N.Mohanan, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

3. Two issues arise for consideration in this writ petition.

The first issue is as to whether the petitioner could have been accommodated as a Junior Clerk with effect from 01.05.2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Tarun, seeks to rely on Ext.P7 proceedings of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to point out that, in the Muvattupuzha Bank, there was a post of Junior Clerk even before 29.02.2016. He would further point out that pursuant to Ext.P7, an additional post of Junior Clerk was created and, consequently, there are altogether two posts of Junior Clerk. Therefore, according to him, the promotion granted to the petitioner as Junior Clerk with effect from 01.05.2012 was perfectly in order. There is no dispute with reference to the number of Junior Clerk posts as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, Sri.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader, cautions that the issue as to whether there were any other Junior Clerks in the Muvattupuzha Bank is not clear from the pleadings in the writ petition or from the exhibits produced along with the writ petition. Sri.Mohanan, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, also does not have any instructions with respect to this aspect. Therefore, the first issue, as to the entitlement of the petitioner for continuance with reference to the sanctioned post of Junior Clerk prior to the date of Ext.P7 cannot be considered in this writ petition.

4. Even on the face of the afore finding, the larger issue arising for consideration is as to whether any proceedings could be taken against the pe