Allowed

M.S.Sameesha v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Oct 2012WP(C)/5819/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed an order granting daily wages to a Lower Primary School Assistant, directing the authorities to approve the appointment on a regular basis subject to an undertaking to reimburse benefits if a superior court decision is reversed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the approval of daily wages; directed approval on regular basis and scale of pay; directed authorities to issue orders within two months upon receipt of undertaking.

M.S.Sameesha 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/18TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 5819 of 2011 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M.S.SAMEESH, AGED 22 YEARS S/O.S.MOHANAN PILLAI, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, P.K.U.M.L.P.SCHOOL THEVALAPURAM, TIRUR EDUCATION SUB DISTRICT MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 102.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 101.

¶12

3. THE MANAGER, P.K.U.M.L.P.SCHOOL, THEVALAPURAM TIRUR EDUCATION SUB DISTRICT MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 102.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. FAYAZ

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

DCS

¶16

WP(C).No. 5819 of 2011 (B)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :-

¶19

P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B2/8214/2010/K.DIS.OF 2ND RESPONDENT

¶20

P2 : COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO. 104/2008/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT

¶21

P3 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.26324/2009-I

¶22

P4 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.33449/2009-A

¶23

P5 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.29733/2009-J

¶24

P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CON. CASE(C) NO. 1092/2009

¶25

P7 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.35002/2010-A

¶26

P8 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.586/2011-U

¶27

P5 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.13559/2012-T DATED 06.09.2012

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(C) No. 5819 OF 2011(B)

¶35

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

¶36

Dated this the 10^th day of October, 2012

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The petitioner herein was appointed as 'LPSA' against a regular vacancy with effect from 22.06.2009. The petitioner joined duty and has been continuing as such.

¶39

The third respondent, Manager of the school forwarded

¶40

the proceedings for approval to the second respondent. The approval was however granted only 'on daily wages' with effect from 22.06.2009 to 31.03.2010 and thereafter on a scale of pay, with effect from 01.06.2010.

¶41

The petitioner has been given to understand that the relief sought for has been denied to the petitioner by placing reliance on Ext. P2 G.O.(G.O.(P) No. 104/08 G.Edn dated 10.06.2008). It is the case of the petitioner that the said G.O. has already been struck down by this Court in Unni Narayanan

¶42

v. State of Kerala [2009 (2) KLT 605], being contrary to the

¶43

mandate of Rule 7A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Educational Rules.

¶44

¶45

-2-

¶46

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)13559/2012. Referring to the course and events, the relief sought for by the parties concerned has been granted by this Court vide Exts. P8 and P9 judgments, referring to the law declared by this Court in Unni Narayan's case.

¶47

The operative portion of Ext. P8 judgment reads as follows:

¶48

“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 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 challengig the decision of the Division Bench in Unni Narayan 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

¶49

¶50

-3-

¶51

of submission of the undertaking by the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.”

¶52

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who

¶53

submits that the issue has not become final by virtue of pendency of the SLP before the Apex Court.

¶54

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that,

¶55

though the aggrieved party has to approach the departmental authorities first, before approaching this Court, the fact remains that the issue has already been considered by this Court, leading to declaration of law as per the decision cited supra. True, the matter is pending consideration before the Apex Court, but no interim order has been granted. The issue has already been considered by another learned Judge of this Court, granting appropriate relief. This being the position, this Court finds that the petitioner is also entitled to have similar relief.

¶56

Accordingly, Ext.P1, to the extent approval is granted

¶57

only on 'daily wage basis' for the relevant period mentioned therein, is quashed. The petitioner shall be granted approval on regular basis and on a scale of pay on getting an 'undertaking'

¶58

¶59

-4-

¶60

that in the event of the Special Leave Petition challenging the judgment of this Court cited supra is 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 to the petitioner forthwith.

¶61

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶62

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

¶63

DCS

M.S.Sameesha v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Sameesha 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

Mohammed Rafi M.K Vs Kerala Water Authority

The Principal Vs State of Kerala

B.S.S.Educational Society Vs the Director of Public Instructions

K.a.Girija Vs State of Kerala

Corpus Christi Educational Society Vs Union of India

Dr.v.D.Radhakrishnan Vs the Director of Collegiate Education