Allowed

Syamkumar P v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Oct 2012WP(C)/1619/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition for an uphill scaling of a school assistant requested the quashing of orders approving his appointment on a daily wage basis. The court allowed the petition, quashed the specific orders to the extent, and granted regular basis appointment subject to reimbursement in case of SLPs challenging Unni Narayanan.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; orders Ext. P8 quashed to the extent; approval granted on regular basis contingent on undertaking to reimburse salary if SLPs challenging Unni Narayanan succeed.

Syamkumar P Vs the 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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/8TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 1619 of 2012 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SYAMKUMAR P, S/O. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI C.N., SWARNAMALA HOUSE ERVIPEROOR P.O.

¶8

THIRUVALLA (UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT NSS HIGH SCHOOL, KUNNAMTHANAM).

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SRI.SHINDO VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

¶13

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION

¶14

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

¶16

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

¶17

THIRUVANANTHAPURM-695001.

¶18

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

¶19

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THIRUVALLA-689101.

¶20

4. THE GENERAL MANAGER & INSPECTOR NSS SCHOOLS, PERUNNA, CHANGANASSERY KOTTAYAM-686102.

¶21

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A. LOWSY

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No. 1619 of 2012 (B)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶26

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/07/2007 PASSED BY RESPONDENTS NO.4

¶27

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-09-2008 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2

¶28

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09/12/2008 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO. 30790/2008.

¶29

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 15-07-2008 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4

¶30

EXHIBIT P4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 08-01-2009 BY WHICH EXT. P4 APPOINTMENT WAS FORWARDED BY RESPONDENT NO.4.

¶31

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-05-2009 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3

¶32

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30-07-2009 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC. 21549/2009.

¶33

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 05-02-2010 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RESPONDENT NO.3

¶34

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-02-2010 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3

¶35

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO. 31/2006/GE DATED 19.01/2006 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1

¶36

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/05/2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC. 7040/2010.

¶37

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATD 05/10/2011 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2

¶38

EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING GO(P) NO. 56/11/G.EDN DATED 26/02/2011.

¶39

EXHIBIT P13: T RUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING GO(Rt)( NO. 4156/2011/G/EDN DATED 03/10/2011.

¶40

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

dlk

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶45

¶46

......................................................................... Dated this the 30^th October, 2012

¶47

J U D G M E N T

¶48

The petitioner was appointed as a Part Time High School Assistant (Hindi) on 20.07.1998 and later, the said post was upgraded as Full Time High School Assistant w.e.f. 19.07.2003. Subsequently, he was reverted to Lower Grade Hindi Teacher (UPSA) (copy of which is produced as Ext.P1). But his appointment as Full Time Lower Grade Hindi Teacher has not been approved on the ground that he had no earlier approved service as Full Time Hindi Teacher. Pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment, Ext.P8 order came to be passed approving appointment only on daily wage basis. The petitioner seeks for a direction quashing Ext.P8 and P11 orders to the extent it has created an artificial break in service from 15.07.2008 to 31.05.2009 on a regular/ scale of pay basis, as the petitioner was a Rule 51A claimant.

¶49

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶50

¶51

¶52

similar issues have been considered and disposed of by this Court vide judgments dated 06.09.2012 in W.P.(C) 13599 of 2012 and 13560 of 2012. The operative portion of the judgment in W.P.(C) 13560 OF 2012 is extracted below:

¶53

“During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that exactly similar issue had come up for consideration before this Court earlier, at the instance of other similarly situated persons by filing W.P.(C) 566/2011 and W.P.(C)28513/2011. Referring to the course and events, the relief sought for by the parties concerned has been granted by this Court vide Exts.P4 and P5 judgments, referring to the law declared by this Court in Unni Narayan's case.”

¶54

The operative portion of the judgment in W.P.(C) 566 of 2011 reads as follows:

¶55

“ The writ petition is therefore allowed. Exts.P1 and P2 to the extent to which the appointment of the petitioner is approved on daily wage basis from 17.08.2009 to 31.03.2010 are quashed. There will be a

¶56

¶57

¶58

direction to the third respondent District Educational Officer, Chavakkad to approve the appointment of the petitioner as UPSA from 17.08.2009 onwards, on the petitioner submitting an undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petitions being allowed, ie., the SLP is challenging the decision of the Division Bench in Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2009(2)KLT 604), the petitioner will reimburse to the Government, the monetary benefits granted for the said period on regular basis. Such orders will be passed within 6 weeks of the date of submission of the undertaking by the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.”

¶59

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶60

In view of the above finding, the petitioner is entitled to

¶61

succeed in the writ petition. The writ petition is allowed and Ext.

¶62

P8, to the extent approval is granted only on daily wage basis for the relevant period mentioned therein, is quashed. The petitioner will be granted approval on regular basis on the scale of pay, on getting an ' undertaking' that, in the event of the Special Leave Petitions challenging the judgment of this Court in

¶63

¶64

¶65

Unni Narayanan v. State of Kerala ( 2009(2) KLT 604 ) are allowed, the petitioner will reimburse the amount drawn as salary. Appropriate orders shall be issued within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the monetary benefits, less the amount already drawn, shall be disbursed accordingly. The claims with regard to other issues are left open.

¶66

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶67

Syamkumar P v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syamkumar P v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Benny M.John Vs State of Kerala

Sreenivasan S. Vs the Manager, Aided Upper Primary School, Tripannur

A.Ramanakumar Vs Kerala Agro Industries Corportion Ltd.

T.B.Anilkumar Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

G.Surendran Pillai Vs the Union of India

P.P.Narayanan Vs University of Calicut