Disposed

The State of Kerala v. Asha.K.S

Kerala HC10 Dec 2010RP/798/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition challenged a judgment directing salary payment. The State argued the petitioner did not work during a specific vacation period and was wrongly appointed to a lecturer scale. The court reviewed and clarified entitlement to vacation salary versus remuneration for invigilation duties, leaving other issues unresolved.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed not to receive vacation salary for the period 31.3.2002 to 2.5.2002 but is entitled to remuneration for invigilation work done.

The State of Kerala Vs Asha.K.S — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

RP.No. 798 of 2010(U) --------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8580/2004 Dated 19/02/2010 ....................

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUVANATHAPURAM.

¶10

THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. V.H.S.S., PIRAPPANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

ASHA. K.S., RESIDING AT ALPHA COTTAGE, PUTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R SRI.SAJU JOHN FOR R

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

S. Siri Jagan, J.

¶17

R.P. No. 798 of 2010

¶18

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶19

Dated this, the 10^th day of December, 2010.

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The State seeks review of my judgment dated 19.2.2010 in W.P (C).No. 8580/2004, wherein I had directed the State to pay to the petitioner salary as Lecturer in Physics in the scale of pay of Rs. 667510550 for the period from April, 2002 to June 2003. The review is sought on two grounds. The first is that since the petitioner's services were terminated on 30.3.2002 and she was reinstated as per the interim order dated 3.5.2002, she is not entitled to salary for the period from 31.3.2002 to 2.5.2002 as she did not work during the period. The second is that since the petitioner was appointed only as a Guest Lecturer, the petitioner is not entitled to salary in the scale of pay, but only on hourly basis.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition also.

¶23

As far as the first contention is concerned, the petitioner in the writ petition would contend that she actually attended to examination duty as an invigilator during April and therefore she must be deemed to have been in service during vacation also. As far as the other contention is concerned, the petitioner would contend that the document now produced cannot be relied upon, which is only an attendance register, which will not prove the matter either way. The petitioner has also produced some documents in support of her contentions.

¶24

I have considered the rival contentions i detail.

¶25

As far as the first contention is concerned, I am inclined to review my judgment insofar as the petitioner has not worked for the period from 31.3.2002 to 2.5.2002. However, in respect of the other,

¶26

R.P.. No. 798/2010. -: 2 :-

¶27

I do not find any reason to review my judgment. Accordingly, this review petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶28

The petitioner will not be entitled to vacation salary as such for the period from 31.3.2002 to 2.5.2002. However, the petitioner will be entitled to the remuneration for the invigilation work done by the petitioner. In respect of all other issues, the judgment would stand.

¶29

Tds/

¶30

[TRUE COPY]

¶31

P.S TO JUDGE.

The State of Kerala v. Asha.K.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Kerala v. Asha.K.S

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

Jose Joseph Vs K.R.Jyothilal

Ajayakumar R. Vs the District Officer and Another.

C.v.Kuttikrishnan Nair Vs Vadakara Municipality

C.R.Bhavadas Vs K.v.Mohankumar

Sumesh Vs Dadendrakumar Dodawat

Colonel R.Alagarraj Vs Sri.Pradip Kumar