Partly allowed

T.L.Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Nov 2016AS/5/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant, a retired manager of a staff-managed school, appealed against the dismissal of his suit seeking maintenance grants and an injunction for return of documents. The High Court quashed compensatory costs, expunged adverse remarks but dismissed the appeal upholding that retired staff have no proprietary rights over staff-managed schools once they retire. Maintenance grants are for school upk

What did the court decide?

Compensatory costs of Rs. 1,000 vacated; adverse remarks expunged; otherwise appeal dismissed with no costs.

T.L.Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/18TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

AS.No. 5 of 1998

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 454/1990 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 08-04-1997

¶7

APPELLANT : PLAINTIFF :-

¶8

T.L.JOSEPH, S/O.THOTTAPPILLY LOUIES, RETIRED SCHOOL HEADMASTER, THAZEKKAD VILLAGE, DESOM MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SMT.P.VANI

¶10

RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS :

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶12

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶14

S.J.VAZAPPILLY, TEACHER, S/O.JOHN VAZAPPILLY, ALOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶15

R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE R4 BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN

¶16

THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V.CHITAMBARESH & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶18

A.S.No.5 of 1998

¶19

Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2016

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Chitambaresh, J.

¶22

The appellant/plaintiff was the Manager of the Rajrshi Memorial High School, Aloor which is a staff managed school. The plaintiff had applied for maintenance grant for the years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 in time. But the maintenance grant was disbursed to the successor manager of the school. The plaintiff had by the time retired from the services of the school.

¶23

The suit has been filed seeking recovery of the maintenance grant allegedly due to the plaintiff and also for a mandatory injunction to return the documents. The court below has by the judgment impugned dismissed the suit which is appealed against. This Court as early as in Ganapathy Nair Vs.

¶24

State of Kerala and Others (ILR 1981 (1) Kerala 714) has

¶25

held that the management of such a school vests in the staff and not in any particular individual. It has been further held that the

¶26

A.S.No.5 of 1998

¶27

¶28

moment a member of the staff retires, he ceased to have anything to do with the school. This is because in a staff management school, nobody other than the school have voice in the management. Nobody other than the staff can have any proprietory right also.

¶29

The above decision has been followed in Aleyamma Varghese Vs. State of Kerala (2007 (4) KLT 12) wherein it is held as follows:-

¶30

“The very concept of staff management envisages or connotes management of the affairs of the school by the members of the staff. The moment a member of the staff of such a school retires from service or if he ceases to be a member of the staff for whatever reason, his right in the management of the school comes to an end.”

¶31

The plaintiff cannot therefore have any proprietory interest

¶32

over the school or the grant made to it.

¶33

Even otherwise the maintenance grant is meant for the annual maintenance of the school building and purchase of educational appliances. This is evident from Section 9(3) of the

¶34

A.S.No.5 of 1998

¶35

¶36

Kerala Education Act read with Rule 3 of Chapter XXVIII of the Kerala Education Rules. There is no evidence that the plaintiff has spent money out of his pocket to run the school for the period in question. The amount is meant for the school and the successor manager has been permitted to draw it. We do not find any justification for the plaintiff laying a claim for the maintenance grant due to the school.

¶37

The plea of mandatory injunction to hand over the records is hit by Section 33 of the Kerala Education Act. The very letter of the Director of Public Instructions dated 1.7.1989 evidencing disbursing the maintenance grant has not been

¶38

produced. The subsisting staff of the school or the Headmaster/Manager thereof has not been impleaded as well. We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the court below dismissing the suit. However we find that the suit was filed pursuant to the permission granted in O.P.No.573/1990 filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore cannot be found fault with for moving the civil court for ventilation of his grievance.

¶39

A.S.No.5 of 1998

¶40

¶41

The award of compensatory cost of ₹1,000/- under the circumstances was unwarranted and we vacate the same. The adverse remarks made against the plaintiff in the judgment impugned are unnecessary and hence expunged.

¶42

The Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs.

¶43

Sd/- V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE

¶44

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶45

skj

¶46

True copy

¶47

P.A to Judge

T.L.Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.L.Joseph 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

Kaiparath Achuthan Vs Kaiprath Kumaran

Gopalakrishnan Vs K.S.Sreelatha

Saraswathy Vijayamandir Vs R.Padmakumaran Nair

T.Ramakrishna Bhat Vs K.Krishna Bhat

Abdul Noushad Vs Helan

Shiju Vs Sheeba