Disposed

P.M.Nalini v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Apr 2010WP(C)/8575/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a headmistress, challenged an audit objection to pay fixation. The court directed the respondent to consider the representation and stay recovery until orders were passed, granting three months for compliance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to consider representation within three months; stay on recovery pursuant to audit objection; opportunity of hearing granted.

P.M.Nalini Vs State of Kerala — 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

MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 8575 of 2010(V)

PETITIONER(S):

P.M.NALINI, HEADMISTRESS, S.S.M.A.L.P. SCHOOL, PAZHAMALLUR, MANAKADA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN SMT.K.S.SABITHA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶12

STATE OF KERALA RPRESENTE BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), MALAPPURAM.

¶14

ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MANKADA, MALAPPURAM.

¶15

GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.T.MAHAMOOD

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶18

==================

¶19

W.P.(C).No. 8575 of 2010

¶20

==================

¶21

Dated this the 5^th day of April, 2010

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The petitioner is a Headmistress in an aided L.P. School. In respect of fixation of pay pursuant to 2004 pay revision, an audit objection has been raised to the effect that reckoning of past provisional approved service for weightage, is irregular. Against the same, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 representation before the Government of Kerala through the Assistant Educational Officer. The petitioner seeks a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 expeditiously.

¶24

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that Ext.P2 has not yet been traced in the files of the Government. He points out that, as is seen from Ext.P2, it has been addressed to the Government of Kerala. But the petitioner points out that it has been filed through the Assistant Educational Officer.

¶25

Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. For this purpose, Ext.P2 as obtaining in this writ petition shall be considered as one filed before

¶26

w.p.c.8575/10 2

¶27

the 1^st respondent. Till orders are passed on Ext.P2, there shall not be any recovery pursuant to the audit objection from the petitioner. The petitioner shall forward a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of this judgment before the 1^st respondent for compliance.

¶28

sdk+

¶29

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶30

///True copy///

¶31

P.A. to Judge

P.M.Nalini v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Nalini 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

Simji Joseph Vs U.K.S.Chauhan

Vimala Vs T.P.Senkumar I.P.S., Managing Director

Jameela Vs T.P.Senkumar, M.D.,K.S.R.T.C. and Anr.

Rosamma Baiju Vs Mathew Kokkad

P.P.Sethumadavan Vs Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board

Dr.B.H.Selin Joy Vs the University of Kerala and Another