Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
PATEL HEMANGINI NIRANJAN BHAI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. salary fixation history of the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal basis of salary recovery objections. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's rationale against retrospective recovery. (Para 6 , 7) |
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2026 The petitioner states that the petitioner is presently working as Gujarati Teacher (Part Time) with Full Time benefits. The petitioner was initially appointed as Gujarati Teacher (Part Time) with effect from 05.06.2000 and on completion of five years service, she was granted Full Time benefits as per Ext.P2 order of the 4th respondent-AEO. The petitioner's probation was declared by the 5th respondent with effect from 05.06.2001. The petitioner was thereafter granted yearly increments 1st and 2nd Time Bound Higher Grades and her salary was revised and re- fixed on the basis of the pay revision orders issued by the Government, from time to time. The petitioner is having only just two years service left for retirement.
2. The petitioner was informed by the Headmistress that the 3rd respondent had raised an audit objection against the fixation of her salary pursuant to 2014 Pay Revision with effect from July, 2014, stating that the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
