Allowed

Thankamani v. Smt. K.M. Karthyayani

Kerala HC26 Nov 2012WP(C)/20851/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Rule 51A pension claim case, the Kerala High Court directed the school manager and education officials to immediately appoint the petitioner in her settled vacancy and pay penalty costs due to persistent non-compliance with multiple prior judgments.

What did the court decide?

Order to appoint petitioner in the vacancy within one month, take over school management if necessary, and pay penalty cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

Thankamani Vs Smt. K.M. Karthyayani — 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

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/5TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 20851 of 2012 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.THANKAMANI, W/O.PREMARAJAN,KADAMKOT HOUSE,NIDUVALOOR, CHUZHALI.P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. SMT. K.M. KARTHYAYANI,, MANAGER,NIDUVALOOR.A.U.P.SCHOOL,CHUZHALI.P.O., KANNUR(DT).- 670 001.

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRUKKUR.P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR - 670 001.

¶13

4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LOWSY K.A.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

WPC.NO.20851/2012 F

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT-P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.34382/2001.

¶21

EXT-P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.6.2004 IN WP(C) 6901/2004.

¶22

EXT-P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)29217/2005.

¶23

EXT-P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT-P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27067/2007.

¶25

EXT-P6 COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN W.A.447/2012 AND W.A.313/2012.

¶26

EXT-P7 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.4.2012 IN C.O.C.(C)291/2012.

¶27

EXT-P8 COPY OF THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DATED 13.8.2012 IN PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL(CIVIL) NO.22251/2012.

¶28

EXT-P9 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.7.2012 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶34

W.P.(C). No. 20851 of 2012

¶35

Dated this the 26^th day of November, 2012

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

This may be the 3^rd or 4^th time that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. The sequence of events narrated in the writ petition shows that, the petitioner is a Rule 51 A claimant, who however was denied appointment by the 1^st respondent Manager of the School, in spite of her settled rights and liberties.

¶38

When the 1^st respondent did not pursue any steps to get the earlier appointment of the petitioner approved, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing O.P.No. 34382/2001 and W.P. (C).No. 6901/2004. Ext.P1 is the judgment passed in the former case and Ext.P2 is the interim order passed in the latter case. Pursuant to the intervention made by this Court, the appointment of the petitioner for the relevant period came to be approved by the 2^nd respondent. Subsequently, in respect of the vacancy which arose in the School, the petitioner put forth her claim. But, without any regard to the rights and interest of the petitioner, the

¶39

W.P.C. No. 20851 of 2012 -2-

¶40

1^st respondent appointed somebody else; which in turn was under challenge in W.P.(C).No. 29217/2005. This case was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 16.11.2005, directing the 2^nd respondent/AEO to consider the grievance and pass appropriate orders thereon, which led to Ext.P4 order dated 28.12.2005, directing the 1^st respondent Manager to give appointment to the petitioner in the concerned vacancy.

¶41

Since the 1^st respondent paid only scant regards to the direction, the petitioner approached this Court again by filing W.P.(C).No. 27067/2007, wherein Ext.P5 judgment came to be passed on 9.1.2012. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as follows:

¶42

“11. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the Manager to appoint the petitioner in the vacancy to which the 4^th respondent was appointed, in the year 2004, namely the retirement vacancy of Shri. K.K. Chandran and forward the proposal for approval to the District Educational Officer within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. For enabling the Manager to forward the details regarding the

¶43

W.P.C. No. 20851 of 2012 -3-

¶44

qualification etc. of the petitioner, the petitioner will furnish documents relating to her qualification before the Manager, if they are not provided already”

¶45

The 1^st respondent however took up the matter in appeal

¶46

by way of W.A.No. 447/2012, wherein interference was declined

¶47

and the writ appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P6 judgment dated 4.4.2012. Still the 1^st respondent was adamant that, she would never give effect to the verdict passed by this Court, which made the petitioner to file C.O.C.(C).No. 291/2012. The stand of the 1^st respondent before this Court was that, she had chosen to prefer an SLP before the Supreme Court. Observing that, there was prima facie contempt, the matter was referred to be dealt with by the Division Bench as per Ext.P7 order passed by the learned Single Judge on 13.4.2012. It is stated that, the contempt matter is still pending.

¶48

While so, the rival claimant i.e., the 4^th respondent in Ext.P5 approached the Apex Court challenging Ext.P6 verdict passed by the Division Bench, by way of SLP(Civil).No. 22251/2012. The Apex Court observed that there was no ground to interfere with the verdict and accordingly, the SLP was

¶49

W.P.C. No. 20851 of 2012 -4-

¶50

dismissed as per Ext.P8 order dated 13.8.2012. Since the proceedings have become final and still no step has been taken by the 1^st respondent to give effect to the verdicts, the petitioner preferred Ext.P9 before the 3^rd and 4^th respondents for taking appropriate action against the Manager of the School, in order to preserve the Rule of Law. The matter is still to be acted upon by the concerned respondent, which made the petitioner to approach this Court again by filing the present writ petition.

¶51

This writ petition was admitted by this Court on 10.9.2012, ordering urgent notice by speed post to the respondents. Despite the completion of service of notice, there is no appearance for the 1^st respondent and no counter affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 2 to 4, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

¶52

In the said circumstance, the respondents 2 to 4 are directed to take further steps as sought for by the petitioner vide Ext.P9, so as to give effect to the orders and verdicts which stand in favour of the petitioner. The proceedings as above shall be

¶53

W.P.C. No. 20851 of 2012 -5-

¶54

finalized in accordance with law, even by taking over the management of the School, if so necessitated, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶55

This Court also finds it fit and proper to award a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) to be satisfied by the 1^st respondent, which shall be paid to the petitioner forthwith. Steps shall be taken by the respondents 2 to 4 to see that cost is also realised and paid to the petitioner at the earliest.

¶56

Writ petition is allowed with cost as above.

¶57

Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶58

Kp/-

Thankamani v. Smt. K.M. Karthyayani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankamani v. Smt. K.M. Karthyayani

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

St.Mary Davis Vs the State of Kerala

K.Deepa Vs the State of Kerala

Sudheesh S.Panicker Vs the State of Kerala and Others

K.S.Srelekha Vs State of Kerala

Manager Vs State of Kerala

Suresan Kumbhanilath Vs State of Kerala