Allowed

Ajitha T.J. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2013WP(C)/19889/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the petitioner was entitled to regularisation of service from 13-6-2011 based on an interim order made absolute. The Court applied a precedent regarding retention in service and directed the respondents to release consequential benefits within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to regularise service from 13-6-2011 and release entitlements within two months; interim stay made absolute.

Ajitha T.J. Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2013/13TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 19889 of 2003 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

AJITHA T.J., H.S.A.(MALAYALAM), LORETTO ANGLO INDIAN HIGH SCHOOL, SAUDI, MUNDAMVELI, KOCHI - 7.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶11

2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, D.P.I.'S OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

5. THE CHAIRMAN AND CORPORATE MANAGER, LORETTO ANGLO INDIAN HIGH SCHOOL, SAUDI, MUNDAMVELI, COCHIN - 7.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

WPC.NO.19889/2003 (P)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 13/06/2001.

¶22

P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6-9210/01/K.DIS.DTD. 8/11/2001.

¶23

P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/745/02/K.DIS. DTD. 31/05/2002 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

P4: COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT NO.B6-5620/02/D.DIS. DTD. 26/06/2002 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

P5: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD.24/07/2002.

¶26

P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ET4/77884/2002/D.DIS. DTD. 19/10/2002 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

P7: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.1977/2003/G.EDN. DTD. 30/05/2003.

¶28

P8: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P)NO.303/01/G.EDN. DTD. 5/10/2001.

¶29

P9: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) 80/2002/G.EDN. DTD. 27/04/2002.

¶30

P10: COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 5/10/2001 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶31

P11: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE REVISION BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.

¶32

P12: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE MANAGEMENT DTD. 15/07/2002.

¶33

P13: COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 15/07/02 EVIDENCING THE ENDORSEMENT MADE ON IT BY THE D.E.O.

¶34

P14: COPY OF THE DECLARATION DTD. 17/12/2003 ISSUED BY THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES.

¶35

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

B.P.RAY, J.

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

¶41

W.P.(C)No.19889 OF 2003

¶42

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

¶43

Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2013

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

This writ petition was filed challenging the illegal limiting of approval to the appointment with effect from 1-9-2011 instead of 13-6-2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has completed the period enabling her to get the higher grade. But she was denied the same for the reason that the issue regarding the approval of her initial appointment is not finally settled.

¶46

Prayers in the writ petition are as follows:

¶47

(i) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P2, P6 and P7;

¶48

(ii) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P4 in so far as limiting the period of approval of appointment of the petitioner;

¶49

(iii) to issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing the District Eduational Officer to give full effect to Ext.P3 order of the Deputy Director and grant approval as directed by him;

¶50

(iv) to issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction commanding and compelling the District Educational Officer to grant approval of appointment to the petitioner as Full Time H.S.A. (Malayalam) and grant all consequential benefits.

¶51

Learned counsel for the parties submit that this case is covered by

¶52

a decision reported in Santha v. State of Kerala [1992 (2) KLT 549]

¶53

wherein this Court came to the conclusion that the purport of Rule 49 of

¶54

W.P.(C)No.19889 OF 2010

¶55

:: 2 ::

¶56

the Education Rules 1959 (Kerala) is that a person is entitled to retention in service either by reason of appointment in permanent vacancy or by reason of continuous service of eight months with continuity in service extending over the summer vacation. In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to vacation salary and other continuity of service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court, subsequent periods of service rendered by the petitioner has been regularised.

¶57

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶58

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the decision cited above, I direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner from 13-6-2011 and the entitlement of the petitioner shall be released forthwith preferably, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The interim order passed by this court is made absolute.

¶59

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶60

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶61

jes

Ajitha T.J. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajitha T.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

N.Manikantan Nair Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Rev.Fr.Joseph Jose Vs the M.G.University

Muraleedharan V.B. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

M/S. Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd. Vs K.S.E.Board.

Jacob Thomas Vs Chairman

Public Information Officer,Uty.of Calicu Vs Sate Information Commission and Another