Si Chennappa Ghaleppa Koti vs The Deputy Director of Public Instructions and Others

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 6.7.2011 passed in Application No. 5520/2010, is called in question in this writ petition. The records reveal that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 330/- per month vide order dated 20.9.1992. The appointment order makes it amply clear that the appointment is purely on contract basis with the consolidated salary of Rs. 330/- per month. However, in the appointment order it is mentioned that the petitioner is appointed as local candidate on contract basis on a consolidated salary. The wordings "local candidate" used in the appointment order dated 20.9.1982 have created confusion. Based on such wordings, the petitioner is claiming that the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Recruitment of Local Candidates to Class III Posts) Rules, 1966 (for short ''Rules'') shall be made applicable and therefore past service of the petitioner as an employee on contract basis also should be reckoned for the purpose of leave, increment and pension. The said contention is rejected by the Department as well as by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by the impugned order.

We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Though the appointment order states that the petitioner is appointed as a local candidate on contract basis on consolidated salary of Rs. 330/- per month, appointment of the petitioner cannot be termed as "appointment of a local candidate". The appointment was not regular, on the other hand, petitioner was merely sponsored by Employment Exchange, Bidar. The Rules deal with the manner in which the local candidates should be appointed and the benefits to be accorded to them. No where the Rules state that the local candidate so appointed should be treated as an appointee on contract basis with consolidated salary. Therefore, ''merely because wrong wordings are used in the appointment order, the same cannot be taken for benefit of the petitioner. Since the petitioner''s appointment is purely on contract basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 330/-, the Department as well as the Tribunal are justified in concluding that the period spent by the petitioner on contract basis cannot be reckoned for the purpose of leave, increment and pension.

The records also reveal that the petitioner while working as a Teacher on contract basis on a consolidated salary, studied and completed BA Degree by attending college, which is situated at about 60 kmts. from his work place, which clearly goes to show that the petitioner had not worked regularly and his appointment was purely on contract basis. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, , the amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships. The law imposes an obligation on payee to repay the money lest it would amount to unjust enrichment. Therefore, though the excess salary is received by the petitioner due to irregular pay fixation, that too without fault of the petitioner, the same needs to be repaid by the petitioner. Any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered. Hence, the Tribunal is justified in ordering recovery of the excess payment made to the petitioner for the years 1982-1985.

Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed.