Dismissed

Sofia Anitha James P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jul 2012RP/1114/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition filed by a principal against an order denying retrospective seniority benefits. The court held that since the petitioner was unqualified when respondents exercised earlier options, she had no justification for retrospective relief. The review was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's claim for retrospective seniority and benefits from 1.7.2006 was dismissed with no order passed.

Sofia Anitha James P. Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2012/3RD SRAVANA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 1114 of 2009 ( ) IN WPC/25276/2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.25276/2007 DATED 05/10/2009

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

SOFIA ANITHA JAMES .P., PRINCIPAL, TECHNICAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ALUVA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2. INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,PROJOE TOWERS,

¶14

VAZHUTHAKKAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14.

¶15

3. THE DIRECTOR,

¶16

INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,

¶17

PROJOE TOWERS,VAZHUTHAKKAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14.

¶18

4. SUSHEELA S.,

¶19

LECTURER IN PHYSICS,MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE,

¶20

THRIKKAKARA,ERNAKULAM.

¶21

5. R.MADHUSOODANAN NAIR,

¶22

LECTURER IN PHYSICS,COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,

¶23

CHENGANNUR.

¶24

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI R2 & R3 BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN, SC, IHRD SRI M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,IHRD

¶25

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

sts

¶27

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶28

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

¶29

RP.NO.1114/2009 IN W.P.(C) NO.25276/07 -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 25^th day of July, 2012

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Writ petition(c).No.25276/2009 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by a common judgment dated 5^th October, 2009, recording the submission of the respondent that option will be given to the petitioner to go over to the Engineering Branch. However, the prayer that such option shall be with effect from 1.7.2006 was rejected by this court, mainly on the ground that the affected parties were not impleaded in the writ petition. In this review petition, petitioner contends that as far as the writ petition is concerned, respondents 4 and 5 are the affected parties and that therefore there is no reason to deny the benefit with effect from 1.7.2006. It is on that ground the review petition is filed.

¶32

Although, the said contention if factually correct, still it is a fact that the respondents 4 and 5 exercised the options to go over the Engineering Colleges pursuant to the options that were given in 1999 and 2004. Even according to the petitioner, she acquired qualification only in 2005. This, therefore, means that in 1999 and

¶33

RP.No.1114/2009

¶34

:2 :

¶35

2004, when options were given, the petitioner was unqualified. If so , there is absolutely no justification for the petitioner to claim that she should be given the benefit of retrospectively, so that she will become senior to respondents 4 and 5. Therefore, I am not persuaded to think that the petitioner has made out a case for interference.

¶36

Review Petition fails and is dismissed.

¶37

vi/

¶38

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶39

RP.No.1114/2009

¶40

:3 :

Sofia Anitha James P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sofia Anitha James P. 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

Issac Vs the Kerala Ombudsman

Mohammed Kunju K.B. & 29 Others Vs Eloor Grama Panchayath

C.P.Saidali @ Kunjava Vs the Irumbuliyam Grama Panchayath,Malappu

K.S.Thampi Vs Wireless T.T.Info Services Ltd.

Y.M.Mohammed Babu Vs Secretary to Govt.

Parambeeri Velayudhan Vs State of Kerala