Disposed

M.Shebitha v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Nov 2013WP(C)/26602/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged appointments approved only on a daily wage basis instead of a pay scale. The court disposed of the writ petition without deciding on merits, directing the first respondent to consider the pending Government revision petition within three months and inform the fifth respondent. No observations were made on the contentions. Outcome: Disposed. Relief: Direction to consider r

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the pending Government revision petition within three months and put the fifth respondent on notice.

M.Shebitha Vs the 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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/17TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 26602 of 2013 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M.SHEBITHA, AGED 36 YEARS

¶8

W/O.WINFRED OSWIN, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT C.M.S. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ARAPETTA, MEPPADI WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

¶10

SRI.M.SAJJAD

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PULIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶15

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

¶16

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KALPETTA AT WAYANAD-673 121.

¶17

THE CORPORATE MANAGER

¶18

C.S.I. SCHOOLS, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001.

¶19

R1 to 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 26602 of 2013 (A)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶24

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 24/6/2008.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.66/2010/G.E. DATED 5/1/2010 OF THE GOVERNEMNT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1/6/2009.

¶27

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1/4/2010.

¶28

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MANAGER DATED 19/10/2011.

¶29

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2013 (1) KLT 755 (SC) DATED 22/2/2013.

¶30

EXHIBIT P7.TRUE COPY OF OTHE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 31.10.2013.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶32

//TRUE COPY//

¶33

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶34

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶35

==========================

¶36

W.P.(C). No.26602 OF 2013 ==========================

¶37

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2013

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the approval of appointments covered by Exts.P1, P3 and P4 only on daily wage basis. According to the petitioner, the appointments under Exts.P1, P3 and P4 ought to have been approved in a scale of pay. In such circumstances, raising grievances against the order limiting the approval only on daily wage basis, the petitioner moved Ext.P7 revision petition before the Government challenging Exts.P1, P3 and P4. When this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7, in accordance with law.

¶40

W.P.(C).26602/13

¶41

¶42

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. In view of the above submission, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the fifth respondent in this proceedings. Taking note of the pendency of Ext.P7 revision petition, this writ petition is disposed of, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and in accordance with law. Needless to say that before passing orders on Ext.P7, the fifth respondent shall also be put on notice.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)

spc/

W.P.(C).26602/13

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

September, 2010

¶51

W.P.(C).26602/13 4

M.Shebitha v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Shebitha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepa Nair Vs the Registrar, Cusat

Mervin T.Vincent Vs the Manager, Cahs Coyalmannam

Karthyayani Vs State of Kerala

M.D. Devasia Vs the Deputy Director of Education

Jaison C James Vs State of Kerala

V.D. Dinesan Vs Coir Board