Dismissed

D.Chandrasekharan Pillai v. Director of Collegiate Education

Kerala HC1 Jul 2013WP(C)/32007/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order denying retrospective appointment from the date of vacancy. Court rejected claim noting petitioner accepted appointment in 1982 and missed time limit for restoring seniority.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the order was dismissed as the petitioner accepted appointment in 1982 and failed to restore seniority within time limit.

D.Chandrasekharan Pillai Vs Director of… — 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

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2013/10TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 32007 of 2006 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

D.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, (RETIRED SELECTION GRADE LECTURER), PADMASREE, KUZHIYAM, CHANDANATHOPE P.O., KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. P. MAYA

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Kss

¶15

WPC.NO.32007/2006 I

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

P1: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 19/09/80 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶19

P2: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 09/0-7/82 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶20

P3: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE DPC HELD ON 29/08/90.

¶21

P4: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 2/05/94 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

P5: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 14/05/97 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

P6: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 16/098/96 IN O.P.NO.22227/97.

¶24

P7: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 1/11/05 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶25

P8: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 3/10/06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

B.P.RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.32007 OF 2006

¶32

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1^st day of July, 2013

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner was a Selection Grade Lecturer in the Government College of Teacher Education, Thiruvananthapuram. He retired from service upon superannuation on 31-3-2001. Petitioner herein challenges Ext.P8 order passed by the second respondent. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner was eligible for the post from the date of occurrence of vacancy i.e., from 19-9-1980 but he was appointed w.e.f.

¶35

9-7-1982 only.

¶36

Prayers in the writ petition are as follows:

¶37

a) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside Ext.P8.

¶38

b) hold that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as lecturer w.e.f. 19-9-1980 with all consequential benefits.

¶39

c) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to reckon the date of appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in Training College as 19-9-1980 and grant him all consequential benefits including refixation of pay and pensionary benefit.

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(C)No.32007 OF 2006

¶42

:: 2 ::

¶43

Learned Government Pleader submits that the issue regarding the seniority of the petitioner is a settled matter. No anomally representation had been filed by the petitioner to restore his seniority, within the time limit. Hence the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner to fix his seniority with effect from the date of occurrence of vacancy and to revise his subsequent benefits by the Government and Ext.P8, rejecting the claim of the petitioner are in order.

¶44

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the State has explained the contents of Ext.P8 order by translating the same in English. Ext.P8 order was passed on 3-10-2006. The petitioner made her claim only in the year 1996. It is to be noted that the petitioner accepted the appointment in the year 1982. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.

¶45

Writ petition is dismissed.

¶46

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶47

jes

D.Chandrasekharan Pillai v. Director of Collegiate Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Chandrasekharan Pillai v. Director of Collegiate Education

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

Smt.Mani Vs the Spl. Tahsildar, Kasargode

Dr.Sasikala v.Prabhu Vs K.S.E.B.

Athulia Jewels Vs Dy.Chief Engineer,Elecrical Circle,Ekm.

Haji C.Ummer Koya Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Muraleedharan V.B. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

P.R.Anilkumar Vs K.S.E.Board