Disposed

N.Sumangala Devi v. Assistant Educational Officer

Kerala HC8 Oct 2013WP(C)/20791/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a protected teacher, sought regularisation of her period of absence. The High Court found she failed to file a proper application detailing the exact period. The court disposed of the petition granting liberty to file a correct application with the Government for regularisation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a proper application for regularisation of the period by granting leave without allowances, to be considered within two months.

N.Sumangala Devi Vs Assistant Educational… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/16TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 20791 of 2013 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER/PETITIONER :

¶7

N.SUMANGALA DEVI, SEWING TEACHER VELUTHAMBI MEMORIAL UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL MANNADY VIA, ENATH, KOTTARAKKARA, RESIDING AT VADASSERY MADHOM, THURUTHEELARUPALAM THAZHATHUKULAKADA P.O., VIA KULAKKADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 645.

¶11

2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 645.

¶12

3. STATE OF KERALA,

¶13

REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION(K)DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

4. THE HEAD MISTRESS, VELUTHAMBI MEMORIAL UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, MANNADY VIA, ENATH, KOTTARAKKARA PIN-691 508.

¶15

R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LOWSY

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

vmr.

¶18

WP(C).No. 20791 of 2013 (Y)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1 : A TURE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.28.9.2006 IN WPC NO.22561/2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶22

P2 :A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.C-145/06 DTD.19.1.2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.C/2091/2011 DTD.30.6.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.36658/K3/2012/G.EDN. DTD.23.8.2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

¶25

P5 :A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.C/2091/2011 DTD.18.10.2012.

¶26

P6 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.C/2091/2011 DTD.15.4.2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

P7 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD.13.5.2013.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

vmr.

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J

W.P.C.NO.20791 OF 2013

¶34

Dated this the 8^th day of October 2013

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner is working as a Sewing teacher in Veluthambi Memorial Upper Primary School, Mannady in Kottarakara. She was initially appointed in the said school on 08.06.1986. While so, on account of the fall in the student strength the Director of Public Instructions abolished the post of sewing teacher in the school with effect from 15.07.1990 pursuant to the staff fixation in the year 1991. Thereafter, the petitioner continued in service as a protected teacher under different orders. The petitioner had submitted a representation for regularisation of the period from 28.5.2000 to 3.3.2003 and to grant consequential service benefits. Admittedly, pursuant to the intervention of this Court she was granted benefit of G.O.(P)No.112/2001/Gen.Edn dated 26.03.2001 and on obtaining protection subsequently she rejoined duty. Obviously the petitioner was out of service for some period. That period was later ordered to be regularised by

¶37

W.P.C.NO.20791 OF 2013 2

¶38

granting eligible leave or leave without allowance. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application for leave without allowance from 29.07.2000 to 02.03.2003 and the same was forwarded to the Government for sanction. As per Ext.P4 letter the same was returned as a mistake crept in the application as regards the period of absence the petitioner sought for regularisation. The petitioner was also asked to explain the delay in submitting the application. In the said circumstances, it is evident that prior to the filing of the captioned writ petition the petitioner had submitted Ext.P7 representation but that was not considered.

¶39

A statement has been filed in this writ petition by the first respondent. It is pointed out that in the application which the petitioner submitted before the Government sought for the regularisation of the period from 29.07.2000 to 02.03.2003 by granting leave without allowances. At the same time, in this writ petition the petitioner seeks for regularisation from 28.05.2000 to 02.03.2003 by granting of leave without allowances. It is further stated therein that earlier, an application was

¶40

W.P.C.NO.20791 OF 2013 3

¶41

submitted along with the statement dated 24.09.2013 wherein the petitioner sought for maternity leave from 01.03.2000 to 13.07.2000 and thereafter half pay leave from 14.07.2000 to 28.07.2000. The contention is that during the period in question the petitioner was out of service. The rival contentions would reveal certain disputed facts obtained in this case. Obviously, the petitioner had earlier approached the Government for granting leave without allowances from 29.07.2000 to 02.03.2003 and at the same time in this writ petition the petitioner seeks for regularisation of the period from 28.05.2000 to 02.03.2003. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner is yet to make a proper application for the purpose of getting the period during she was out of service, regularised by grant of leave without allowances. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that the question of regularisation can be considered only on a proper application showing the relevant period correctly. When it is evident that the petitioner has not filed a proper petition for the aforesaid purpose I am of the view that the petitioner can be given liberty to approach

¶42

W.P.C.NO.20791 OF 2013 4

¶43

the Government by filing a proper petition for regularisation of the period by granting the leave without allowances. In that view of the matter without making any observation as to the merits of the rival contentions raised by the petitioner this writ petition is disposed of leaving the petitioner at liberty to file a proper application showing the period in question correctly and seeking for regularisation of that period by grant of leave without allowances. In case the petitioner is desirous to file such an application she may do so expeditiously. In case the petitioner submits such an application for regularisation of the period during which she was out of service the same shall be taken up for consideration by the third respondent and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of such representation.

¶44

sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶45

R.AV

¶46

//True Copy//

¶47

PA to Judge

N.Sumangala Devi v. Assistant Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Sumangala Devi v. Assistant Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nafeesa.M Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

T.D.Bashardeen Vs Kerala State Council for Science, Technology & Environment

K.a.Habsa Vs the State of Kerala

K.Damodaran Vs Kerala Water Authority

James.M.M Vs Union of India

Viju K.S. Vs Chief Engineer