Remanded

Sheena M. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Mar 2013WP(C)/21346/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by a school assistant challenging an order rejecting her request for re-option due to a date discrepancy in her service records. The Court held that since the mistake was due to erroneous entries rather than deliberate fraud, the petitioner should be permitted to correct the records and exercise re-option. It directed the school authoritie

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to approach school authorities to correct the date of entry in service records from 18.6.2001; subsequently, she may exercise re-option for a different effective date.

Sheena M. 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 A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/29TH PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 21346 of 2011 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SHEENA M., UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VALAYANCHIRANGARA, PIN-683 556.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN, SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.

¶12

3. HEADMASTER/HEADMISTRESS, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VALAYANCHIRANGARA, PIN-683 556.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 21346 of 2011 (P)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 18/06/2001 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶20

EXT.P2	COPY OF THE RULES FOR FIXATION OF PAY IN THE REVISED PAY SCALE PUBLISHED AS ANNEXURE 2 TO THE PAY REVISION ORDER.
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4	COPY OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION.
EXT.P5	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17/08/2010 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6	COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION LETTER DATED 26/11/2010 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7	COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P8	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/06/2006 IN O.P. NO. 8942/2003-M OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

---------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 21346 of 2011 - P

¶27

--------------------------------------------------Dated this the 20^th March, 2013

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner had approached this Court

¶30

challenging Exts.P4 and P7. Ext.P4 is an order issued by the District Educational Officer finding that since the petitioner had given wrong date regarding the date of entry into service as 14.6.2001 instead of 18.6.2001, the petitioner is not entitled for higher grade and it can be given only after rectifying the defects in the option exercised by the petitioner and the salary drawn by the petitioner on the basis of the mistaken option has to be recovered.

¶31

Ext.P7 is an order passed by the Government rejecting the request made by the petitioner for

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 21346 of 2011 - P

¶33

¶34

exercising re-option.

¶35

The facts involved in the case would disclose

¶36

that the petitioner exercised an option for a revised pay scale which had come into force from 1.7.2004 as per Ext.P2 by submitting an option on 1.6.2006 and while exercising option it was indicated that she had opted for the revised pay scale in terms with the pay revision order with effect from 5.10.2005. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted the necessary pay. But when her claim for higher grade was being processed and an intimation was sent by the Headmistress to the District Educational Officer, Ext.P4 came to be issued stating that there was a mistake in the service records and it is informed that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis with effect from 18.6.2001. Petitioner submitted representation Ext.P5 to the Government to permit the petitioner to exercise re-

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 21346 of 2011 - P

¶38

¶39

option as according to the petitioner, the date 14.6.2001 in the service records was only a mistake and whereas the petitioner joined service as UPSA on 18.6.2001 and it was based on the mistaken entry in the service records that the option was exercised.

¶40

Ext.P5 was forwarded by the District Educational Officer to the Government as per Ext.P6. It was rejected by the Government in terms of Ext.P7. The petitioner relies upon Ext.P8 and contends that though there are restrictions in Ext.P2 pay revision order that re-option will not be permitted, this Court had taken into consideration the said situation and in a case where mistake was noticed during audit, this Court had permitted the candidate to give reoption to rectify such audit objections.

¶41

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that there is no

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 21346 of 2011 - P

¶44

provision in Ext.P2 to revise the order to exercise reoption and therefore at no point of time re-option is permissible.

¶45

But going by the judgment at Ext.P8, it is

¶46

clear that even without any specific provision in the respective pay revision orders, this Court had permitted re-option to be exercised especially when the mistake is pointed out during audit objection and after several years, it will be unfair to deny the petitioner the said opportunity. The factual circumstances involved in the case would also disclose that there is no deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to mislead the Department. She was entitled for a revised pay scale on expiry of four years from the date of joining service. The service records would show that it was endorsed by the Headmistress of the School and for a mistake committed by the

¶47

¶48

W.P.(C) No. 21346 of 2011 - P

¶49

Headmistress, the petitioner should not be denied the benefit of the pay revision order. True that the petitioner has also signed the form of option. But apparently this was based on entries available in the service records. Unless the mistake in the service records is corrected, it would not have been possible for the petitioner to have exercised the said right. In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:

¶50

(i) The petitioner may approach the school authorities for correcting the service records regarding her date of entry into service to 18.6.2001.

¶51

(ii) Thereafter, the petitioner shall be permitted to exercise re-option to change the effective date on which the option is exercised and on such re-option being exercised, the 2^nd respondent shall consider the matter and pass appropriate orders and necessary

¶52

W.P.(C) No. 21346 of 2011 - P

¶53

¶54

correction if required may be done in respect of the benefits derived by the petitioner.

¶55

Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶56

rka

¶57

/true copy/

Sheena M. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheena M. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumaramangalam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs T.M. Thomas

Shabna Afsal Vs State of Kerala

M.L.Radhabai Vs K.S.Ramesan Nair

Chithara Madhu Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Raji Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

D.Raveendran Vs the State Level Committee on Sales Tax