The court emphasized the necessity of providing opportunity for hearing before imposing salary recovery, asserting that such orders without notice are illegal.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2026 Petitioners were appointed as Upper Primary School Teachers with effect from 01.06.2016 in Mount Carmel High School, Mamanna in Agali, Palakkad District in regular vacancies. The appointments were duly approved by the 3^rd respondent.

2. The petitioners drew salary till July, 2020.

While so, on 20.08.2020, orders were issued by the 3^rd respondent, directing the Headmistress to quantify the salary paid to the petitioners for the period from 01.06.2016 to July, 2020 and also to withhold salary from August, 2020 due to audit objection as appointments were made in additional division vacancies. There was no challenge to the Staff Fixation Orders.

3. The petitioners challenged the orders in W.P.(C) No.17548/2020 and this Court stayed the orders.

Consequently, the petitioners continued in service and drew salary also.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition, proceedings were taken to cancel the appointments, by the 3^rd respondent. The 2^nd respondent considered the issue and based on the submission of the Manager as per Ext.P16 order, the appointments of the petitioners were regularised on the basis of Ext.P15 Government Order. Accordingly, the Manager submitted revised proposal and all appointments were approved with effect from 01.06.2016 to 05.02.2021 notionally and thereafter on scale of pay basis. The petitioners were not involved in the approval proceedings.

5. Later, W.P.(C) No.17548/2020 was allowed and orders directing recovery and cancellation of appointments were set aside by this Court. The State went in appeal filing W.A. No.142/2025. During the pendency of the writ appeal, Ext.P16 order was brought to the notice of this Court. In the light of the subsequent developments, the Division Bench set aside Ext.P21 judgment and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

6. The petitioners state that surprisingly, the 3^rd respondent issued Ext.P23 order directing the petitioners to refund a sum of ₹20,91,213/- each to Government Treasury, being the salary and benefits paid for the period from 01.06.2016 to 05.02.2021. The petitioners have worked during the afore period and Exts.P15 and P16 do not contemplate recovery or refund of any amounts. Apart from that, the petitioners cannot be faulted for the approval and subsequent action by the authorities. Aggrieved by the impugned action, the petitioners are before this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3.

8. The petitioners would submit that they were neither issued with any notice nor were heard before ordering to repay the huge amount of more than ₹20 lakhs each. The petitioners therefore contend that Ext.P23 notice issued by the

3^rd respondent is highly illegal and unsustainable in law.

9. I find that aggrieved by Ext.P23, the petitioners have moved the 1^st respondent filing Ext.P24 Revision Petition. Ext.P24 is a statutory Revision Petition. Therefore, it is necessary that the statutory revisional authority considers the grievance of the petitioners and passes appropriate orders thereon expeditiously and within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P24 Revision Petition and pass orders thereon within three months after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the Manager. The benefit of interim order passed on 10.02.2026 will continue to enure to the benefit of the petitioners till a decision is taken on Ext.P24.

Sd/-