2025:KER:26906 1 WP(C) No.2796 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 2796 OF 2015 PETITIONER: T.A.KUNJU MOHAMMED, AGED 58 YEARS STAFF NO 003 161 SENIOR MARINE SURVEYOR, HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY SUB -DIVISION,MARINE DEPARTMENT,COCHIN PORT TRUST BY ADVS. JISMIN JOSE BEA MARY BENNY RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COCHIN PORT TRUST REP. BY ITS SECRETARY WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI -682 009 2 THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI 682 009 3 THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFIER COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI 682 009 BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:26906 2 WP(C) No.2796 of 2015 JUDGMENT Dated this the 27 th day of March, 2025 The writ petition is preferred being aggrieved by the recovery of amount from the petitioner alleging wrong fixation of pay. 2. The petitioner is the Survey Assistant under the 1st respondent. The issue involved in this case is with respect to the recovery of amount, which is stated to be paid to the petitioner on the basis of an erroneous fixation of pay. However, this issue has already been covered by various judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court. The petitioner has relied upon the decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [2015 (I) KLT 429] in which the Apex Court decided a bunch of cases arised in the similar circumstance. The petitioner also produced a judgment in WP(C) No.11688 of 2014, which was disposed of by this Court following the decision in Rafiq Masih’s case cited supra. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2025:KER:26906 3 WP(C) No.2796 of 2015 4. Going by the facts involved in this case, it appears that the issue is squarely covered by the decision in Rafiq Masih’s case cited supra. In paragraph 18 of the judgment in Rafiq Masih’s case, the Apex Court summarised the situations where recoveries are impermissible. It was held in Clause (iii) of paragraph 18 that “recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.” Under such circumstances, Ext.P1 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed, accordingly. sd/- P.M.MANOJ JUDGE das 2025:KER:26906 4 WP(C) No.2796 of 2015 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2796/2015 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20-05- 2014 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF DISCUSSION HELD ON 20-08-98 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16-6-2014 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SCAN REPORT