SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAMSUDHEEN K – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates:
SARATH M.S. 2) SMITHA A RAdvocate

JUDGMENT

Admit. Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

2. The petitioners are retired teachers who were involved in census duty while they were in service. They were granted earned leave during that period. Later, they were asked to refund a portion of the earned leave (24 days) and they repaid the same. The writ petition has been filed seeking refund of the amount that they had repaid with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

3. This Court has in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.34042 of

2023 with respect to similarly situated persons relied on other judgments of this Court and held that the petitioners therein are entitled for the amount which was recovered. The Court directed to refund the amount within four months leaving open the question of payment of interest for delayed payment. I do not find any reason to take a different view. The Government has also issued consequential orders to refund such amounts.

The writ petition is hence allowed. There will be a direction to the respondents to release the amounts recovered from the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The question regarding the liability of the respondents to pa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top