Allowed

Manoj.J. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Dec 2012WP(C)/75/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, teachers who H.S.A.s sought leave for B.Ed. courses before a statutory amendment deleted the disclaimer on pension benefits, challenged adverse entries in their service books. The Court relied on a prior decision and directed the respondent to correct the records.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the First Respondent to pass appropriate orders to remove the adverse clause and cause the correct entry in the service books within three months.

Manoj.J. 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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/27TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 75 of 2012 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. MANOJ.J., AGED 42 YEARS,

¶8

HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (JUNIOR IN COMMERCE) C.P.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KUTTIKKAD, KADAKKAL,KOLLAM

¶9

2. THARA R NAIR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (SOCIAL WORK), S.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOTTARA, KOLLAM

¶10

3. BINDU S.DAS, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER, COMMERCE, C.P.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUTTIKKAD, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM

¶11

4. SHAJIKUMAR T.C. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (COMMERCE), S.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOTTARA, KOLLAM

¶12

5. SHEREEFA BEEVI, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER, COMMERCE, K.R.G.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ODANAVATTOM. (CORRECTED AS SHEREEFA BEEVI.I. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER, K.R.G.M. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ODANAVATTOM AS PER ORDER DATED 17/02/2012 IN IA 2447/2012.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT) DIRECTORATE OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION TRIVANDRUM 695 001. (CORRECTED AS STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT) DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION TRIVANDRUM AS PER ORDER DATED 17/02/2012 IN IA 2447/2012.)

¶16

WP(C).No. 75 of 2012 (H)

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.T.LILLY

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 75 of 2012 (H)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.	P1 COPY OF THE ORDER 1ST PETITIONER.	DATED 5.9.2005 SANCTIONING LEAVE TO THE
EXT.	P2 COPY OF THE ORDER 2ND PETITIONER.	DATED 4.4.2005 SANCTIONING LEAVE TO THE
EXT.	P3 COPY OF THE ORDER 3RD PETITIONER.	DATED 19.7.2005 SANCTIONING LEAVE TO THE
EXT.	P4 COPY OF THE ORDER 4TH PETITIONER.	DATED 29.3.2004 SANCTIONING LEAVE TO THE
EXT.	P5 COPY OF THE ORDER 5TH PETITIONER.	DATED 7.4.2003 SANCTIONING LEAVE TO THE
EXT.	P6 COPY OF THE JUDGME OF 2007.	NT DATED 29.3.2007 IN WP(C) NO.10522

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P. A. TO JUDGE

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶28

¶29

W.P.(c) No. 75 OF 2012

¶30

¶31

Dated this the 18^th day of December , 2012

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The case of the petitioners, who are working as H.S.As. under the respondent is that, they sought for and obtained leave without allowance for pursuing B.Ed. course, which in turn was granted as borne by Exts.P1 to P5. But there is a rider in the said order that the leave period will not be counted for any service benefits, including pension and the same will be recorded in the service book of the incumbent, which in turn is under challenge.

¶34

The main case of the petitioners is that, the relevant proviso which disentitles the petitioners from claiming the benefit came to be deleted from the Statute book i.e. by virtue of the amendment of Rule 33(b)(2) of Part I K.S.R. only with effect from 24.04.2005. As borne by Exts.P1 to P5, the leave sanctioned to all the petitioners is in respect of the period prior to the said date i.e. 24.04.2005 and hence the deletion of the proviso cannot have any adverse consequence as far as the

¶35

W.P.(C)No.75/2012

¶36

¶37

petitioners are concerned, submits the learned counsel. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, issues of similar nature have already been considered by this Court as per the decision reported in

¶38

Deepika v. State of Kerala ( 2007(1)KLT 71).

¶39

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶40

The respondents have not chosen to file any counter

¶41

affidavit. After hearing both the sides and also after going through the pleadings and proceedings and also the law declared by this Court in the decision cited supra, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. In the said circumstance, the adverse clause as contained in Exts.P1 to P5 cannot have any effect as far as the petitioners are concerned. The first respondent is directed to to pass appropriate orders in the light of the ruling as aforesaid and cause the same to be entered in the service book of the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶43

sv.

¶44

W.P.(C)No.75/2012 2

¶45

W.P.(C)No.75/2012 2

Manoj.J. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj.J. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.G.Prakash Vs State of Kerala

K.E.Appukuttan Vs Guruvayoor Devaswam

K. Narayanan Vs Guruvayoor Devaswom

Manager, S.N.V.U.P.S. Vs State of Kerala

Jessy Dominic Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.a.Ashokan Vs Vice Chancellor, University of Kannur