Allowed

Ganesh Kumar.R v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Jun 2009WP(C)/11238/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, teachers working on daily wages in an aided school, filed a writ petition seeking salary for a specific period. The court directed the school manager to pay the admissible salary within three months, noting that pending approval of proposals does not deny salary liability.

What did the court decide?

The 4th respondent to disburse admissible amounts at the agreed rate within three months of the judgment. No costs.

Ganesh Kumar.R Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 11238 of 2006(K) ---------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

---------------------

¶8

1. GANESH KUMAR.R., ALATHU VEEDU, VAKAM (PO), KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. HASEENA.S., CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAMULAKKAL P.O., ANCHAL VIA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.M.V.THAMBAN.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PUNALUR.

¶15

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM.

¶16

4. THE MANAGER, JAVAHAR HIGH SCHOOL, EDAMULAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶17

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANI, R4 BY MR.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV.MR.R.SURAJ KUMAR.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C). NO.11238/2006-K:

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE G.O.(P).NO.1/05/G. EDN. DT. 01/01/2005.

¶23

EXT.P.1.(A): COPY OF THE G.O.(P).NO.46/2006/G. EDN. DT. 01/02/2006.

¶24

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE R.3. DT. 15/02/2006.

¶25

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE GOVT. DT. 30/03/2006 BY THE P.1.

¶26

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE GOVT. DT. 30/03/2006.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)218/95/LAD DT. 06/10/95.

¶29

EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE INTIMATION DTD. 24/06/05 ISSUED TO R.2. BY THE HSA INCHARGE OF THE SCHOOL IN SEEKING APPROVAL OF P.1.

¶30

EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE INTIMATION DTD. 24/06/05 ISSUED BY has IN CHARGE OF THE SCHOOL SEEKING APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF P.2. TO R.2.

¶31

EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT OF TEACHERS.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶36

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 11238 of 2006-K

¶38

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶39

Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009.

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

The petitioners herein were working as UPSA and L.G. Hindi Teacher respectively on daily wages in the 4^th respondent's school. the main relief sought for in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to pay salary from 13.6.2005 to 22.11.2005.

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Govt. Pleader

¶43

and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat.

¶44

In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is averred that the appointments have not been approved. Therefore, th department is not having any liability to pay remuneration to the petitioners. The Panchayat has field a detailed counter affidavit. Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) are proposals submitted seeking for approval of appointment. It is stated that they are pending.

¶45

The school in question is an aided school managed by the Panchayat. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that the petitioners have worked for daily wages from 13.6.2005 to 22.11.2005. They were appointed in the then existing vacancies also. The fact that the proposals

¶46

¶47

wpc 11238/2006

¶48

for approval of appointments are pending, cannot be taken as a ground to deny salary to the petitioners by the Panchayat.

¶49

Therefore, the 4^th respondent will disburse the admissible amounts as per the agreed rate at the time of appointment to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If, ultimately the appointment is approved by the competent authority, then the Panchayat can claim reimbursement from the Government.

¶50

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶51

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶52

kav/

Ganesh Kumar.R v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Kumar.R v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.K.Padmini Vs Mr.Kuruvila Jose and Another

K.S.Sindhu Vs State of Kerala

The Manager Vs State of Kerala

R.S.Pramod Kumar Vs T.S.Padmakumari

P.K.Sathi Vs Shri Ashok Kumar Singh I.A.S.

V.K. Mohandas Vs T.K. Jose