AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P4 audit objection, in which her initial date of appointment has been objected to
consequently saying that she is entitled to monetary benefits in service only from a later date.
The petitioner says that, as is clear from Ext.P4, the reasons stated by the audit team are that since her initial date of appointment has been shown
as 15.07.1989, it cannot be approved because the said date is a Saturday and that she is, therefore, entitled to the benefits only from 17.07.1989. She
says that the audit objection reflected in Ext.P4 is untenable since, as is clear from Ext.P2 attendance register, she had been working in the school
from 01.06.1989, while her approval had been granted only with effect from 15.07.1989. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P4 be set aside and that her
pensionary benefits be disbursed dehors the objections therein.
In response to the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by her learned counsel â€" Smt.Jayasree Manoj, the learned Senior
Government Pleader â€" Sri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that a statement has been filed on record, wherein, it has been averred that the District
Educational Officer (DEO) had found the mistake in the date of appointment of the petitioner and had issued an erratum order showing the correct
date as 17.07.1989. He says that a copy of this order, dated 27.03.1990, was also issued to the petitioner and that salary was paid to her reckoning the
appointment as being 17.07.1989. He submitted that since the petitioner has not taken any steps against the said 'erratum' approval, she cannot now
turn around and challenge Ext.P4. He then submitted that Ext.P4 objection is based on the fact that the petitioner's approval has taken effect only
from 17.07.1989 and not from 15.07.1989 and therefore, that same is in order. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.
I notice that a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, wherein, she asserts that the aforementioned 'erratum' approval had not been received
by her and that even as on today, the records would show that her approval has taken effect from 15.07.1989.
Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in any event of the matter, since her client was appointed on 15.07.1989 and that since,
as is evident from Ext.P2, she was working with effect from 01.06.1989 continuously in the School, Ext.P4 audit objections would have no legs to
stand on. She added that in order to avoid controversy, her client had even refunded an amount of Rs.17,700/-, which is stated to be the excess drawn
during July 1999 and from July 2005 to June 2009 and that she was, thereafter, paid the arrears of pay consequent to such re-fixation after adjusting
the said amount. She showed me Ext.P7 in substantiation and prayed that Ext.P4 be set aside and the respondents be directed to give her client full
benefits reckoning the date of appointment as being 15.07.1989.
I have considered the afore submissions and it is indubitable there-from that the sole reason behind Ext.P4 objections is that the petitioner's initial
date of appointment, namely 15.07.1989, is a Saturday and that, therefore, her appointment can take effect only from Monday after that, namely
17.07.1989.
However, as matters now stand, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner's approval had been altered from 15.07.1989 to 17.07.1989,
though it is so stated in the counter affidavit. Pertinently, no document in support of the same has been produced before this Court and this is relevant
because, the petitioner avers in her reply affidavit that no such document had been made available to her either.
That apart, the sole relevant question is not whether the petitioner was granted approval with effect from 15.07.1989, but whether her continuous
service began from that date; and there is large amount of force in her asserting so, when one goes through Ext.P2 attendance register, where she is
shown to have been working in the school right from 01.06.1989. This aspect has not been controverted by the State or by its functionaries in the
counter affidavit filed on record and I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner's assertions will have to be taken to be credible.
In the afore circumstances, I cannot see any reason why the objections in Ext.P4 must find favour in law and consequently, order this Writ Petition
and set aside the said objection; with a consequential direction to the respondents to ensure that all the benefits to the petitioner, dehors Ext.P4, are
made available to her within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.