Allowed

K.K.Sasikala v. P.K.Savithri & Ors.

Kerala HC1 Jul 2010RP/848/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition sought to recall a judgment allowing a teacher's voluntary retirement. The court recalled the judgment and allowed the review, directing retrial because the petitioner was found to have less than 20 years of qualifying service, an apparent factual error in the previous order.

What did the court decide?

The judgment was recalled and review petitions allowed; writ petitions remitted for fresh hearing.

K.K.Sasikala Vs P.K.Savithri & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 848 of 2009() -------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.5732/2000 Dated 18/12/2008 ....................

¶5

REVIEW PETITIONER: PETITIONER

¶6

-----------------------------------------K.K.SASIKALA, ASST.TEACHER,SREE RAMA VILASAM. L.P.SCHOOL,CHERUTHAZHAM,P.O.MUNDUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): RSPONDENTS 1 TO 6

¶9

¶10

MANAGER,SREE RAMA VILASOM.L.P.SCHOOL, CHERUTHAZHAM,PILATHARA.P.O, MANDUR(VIA)KANNUR.

¶11

THE HEAD MASTER, -DO-

¶12

THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MADAI,PAYANGADI.P.O,KANNUR.

¶13

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR.

¶14

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR.

¶15

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

¶16

BY ADV.SHRI O.V.MANIPRASAD FOR R1 & R2 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI FOR R3 TO R6

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, ALONG WITH RP NO.845 OF 2009 & RP NO.966 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.

¶19

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

¶20

Review Petition No.848/09 in O.P.No.5732/2000 & Review Petition Nos.845/09 & 966/09 in W.P.(C)No.3978/05 -------------------------------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 1^st DAY OF JULY, 2010

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

All these three review petitions were filed seeking for review of a common judgment passed in O.P.No.5732/2000 and W.P.(C) No.3978/2005. Heard parties.

¶23

This Court by a common judgment disposed of the the Writ Petitions with directions contained in paragraph 4. The application for voluntary retirement submitted by the 5^th respondent in O.P.No.3978/2005 produced as Exhibit R5(j) dated 10.11.2007 was directed to be acted upon by the Manager with a further direction to pass appropriate orders allowing her application by the Assistant Educational Officer.

¶24

It is pointed out in the Review Petitions that subsequent to the judgment the matter regarding the length of service of the petitioner was examined and Annexure-I letter produced along with R.P.No.845/10 was issued to the 5^th respondent. It is pointed out that the 5^th respondent has only 11 years, three months and 19 days of qualifying service as on

¶25

R.P.Nos.845,848 & 966/09 .

¶26

-2-

¶27

12.3.2000 after excluding two years and two days for the period of leave without allowance. Even if the suspension period from 13.3.2000 to 30.11.2007 is treated as qualifying service, the teacher will not have 20 years of qualifying service for voluntary retirement. These facts have been detailed in R.P.No.966/2009 filed by the petitioners therein.

¶28

Directions were issued by this Court on the basis of

¶29

the facts put by the petitioner in the Writ Petition as well as on the premise that she is having more than 20 years of service on 30.11.2007. Therefore, actually the judgment was passed with an apparent error on such a vital question of fact.

¶30

Therefore the judgments are recalled and the review petitions are allowed. The Writ Petitions will be posted for hearing on 6.7.2010.

¶31

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶32

dsn

K.K.Sasikala v. P.K.Savithri & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Sasikala v. P.K.Savithri & Ors.

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

K.K.Kesavan Vs Thomas

Thankamma @ Vilasini Vs G.K.Pillai

M.M.Varkey Vs Dr.P.Prabhakaran and Another

Anusree Akshay Vs N.Nagaraju, Regional Officer

Manuelsons Financial Enterprises Pvt.Ltd Vs the Special Tahsildar

Bijoy John George Vs the Pooyappally Grama Panchayat