Partly allowed

K.Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC23 Jun 2010RP/521/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a review petition concerning the date of entitlement to full-time benefits for a lecturer. The court found a clerical error in the earlier judgment and modified the order to concede benefits from 01.06.2001 instead of 18.09.2001.

What did the court decide?

The judgment in O.P. No. 11253/2003 is modified to grant full-time benefits with effect from 1.6.2001.

K.Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala and Another — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932

¶5

RP.No. 521 of 2010(M) --------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.11253/2003 Dated 19/02/2010

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER

¶7

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

¶8

K.MURALEEDHARAN, LECTURER IN ENGLISH, SMSN VHS SCHOOL, VAIKOM.

¶9

BY ADV. MR.S.RAMESH BABU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶11

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

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶13

2. THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶14

ADV.MR.P.N. SANTHOSH – GOVERNMENT PLEADER.

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶17

R.P.NO.521 OF 2010 IN O.P.NO.11253 OF 2003

¶18

Dated this the 23^rd day of JUNE, 2010

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner seeks review of my judgment in O.P.No.11253/2003 dated 19.2.2010. The petitioner's grievance is that in the same, the petitioner was given full time benefits only with effect from 18.9.2001 on the ground that the second

¶21

year classes would start only from that date, from which date only an additional full time post would arise, which is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. According to the petitioner, the second year classes started on 1.6.2001 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to full time benefits, since with effect from that date there would be an additional post of English teacher.

¶22

I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I

¶23

am satisfied that there is a mistake in the judgment as pointed out by the petitioner. Accordingly, I modify the judgment to the

¶24

R.P.No.521/10

¶25

¶26

effect that the petitioner would be entitled to full time benefits with effect from 1.6.2001 instead of 18.9.2001. In respect of all other matters, the judgment would stand.

¶27

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶28

acd

¶29

R.P.No.521/10 3

K.Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala and Another

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

Satheesan.T.S Vs Mr.T.P.Sen Kumar

M/S.Goyal M.G.Gases Pvt.Ltd Vs M/S.Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd.

Muthoot Hotels and Infrastructure Ventur Vs the Commissioner of Customs and Another

P.Ramanathan Vs K.Balakrishnan Nambiar

M/S K.N.Security & Allied Services Vs P.Jagadeesan and Another

Josichen Thomas Vs the Village Officer