Partly allowed

State of Kerala v. Suja Purushothaman

Kerala HC19 Jan 2016RP/142/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a review petition filed by the State. The State sought to correct a decision in a writ petition that granted service benefits to a teacher for leave taken for a B.Ed. course. The Court quashed the earlier judgment as it relied on a proviso to Rule 91A of the Kerala Service Rules that had been deleted effective 11.05.2005.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed, original writ petition dismissed, and contempt case closed.

State of Kerala Vs Suja Purushothaman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/29TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

R.P.No.142 of 2015 IN W.P.(C).8931/2012-N

¶6

[AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8931/2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 29-05-2014].

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/ RESPONDENTS IN W.P.C:-

¶8

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM.

¶11

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONER IN W.P.C:-

¶13

SUJA PURUSHOTHAMAN, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (SS) SV HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KLAPPANA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN.

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-01-2016, ALONG WITH CONT. CASE (C) NO.1115 OF 2015-S, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶16

RP.142/2015 IN WP(C).8931/2O12-N

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE:-

¶19

ANNEXURE R1 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT RULE DATED 11.05.2005, SRO.526/05.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE:-

¶21

------------------------------------------NIL.

Vku/[ true copy ]

K. Vinod Chandran, J

R.P.No.142 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No.8931 of 2012-N &

¶26

Cont. Case (C) No.1115 of 2015

¶27

¶28

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT/ORDER

¶30

The review petitioner is the State, who seeks review of

¶31

the judgment in W.P.(C) No.8931 of 2012 dated 29.05.2014.

¶32

The issue agitated by the respondent herein, who

¶33

was the petitioner in the writ petition, was with respect to the service benefits, including increments, pension, etc. for the period in which she had proceeded on leave for joining B.Ed. course in the academic year 2005-06. The Government, in the writ petition, took up a contention that the writ petitioner would be entitled to such service benefits only if the same has been granted under Rule 91A of Part I of Kerala Service Rules [for brevity “KSR”]. This Court found, on the basis of the decision in Deepika v. State of

¶34

Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 71] that the issue is no longer res integra and the proviso to Rule 91A would be equally applicable to a teacher who seeks leave for completing the B.Ed. course.

¶35

RP.142/2015 & CoC.1115/2015

¶36

¶37

The learned Government Pleader, rightly, points out

¶38

that there is no proviso to Rule 91A and what is applicable, if at all, is Rule 33(b)(2). Deepika (supra) also deals with Rules 33(2), 88 and 91A of Part I KSR. Therein, a teacher who availed of leave in the academic year 2003-04, claimed service benefits, including increments and pension. The leave was availed under Rule 88 and the Government took up a contention that only a leave availed under Rule 91A would be entitled for the service benefits. A learned Single Judge of this Court found that the proviso under Rule 33(b)

¶39

(2) would entitle a teacher joining a training course, like B.Ed., to claim the benefit of the said proviso. The proviso reads as under:

¶40

“Provided also that leave without allowances taken by teachers for completion of training courses such as B.Ed., Hindi Teachers' Training, Language Teachers' Training and Teachers' Training Certificate Course shall count for increments”.

¶41

The said proviso is deleted with effect from

¶42

11.05.2005 by G.O.(P) No.217/2005/Fin. dated 11.05.2005.

¶43

Obviously the same was not noticed by the learned Single Judge while passing the judgment which is sought to be reviewed. In such

¶44

RP.142/2015 & - 3 - CoC.1115/2015

¶45

circumstance, the review petition is allowed, the judgment in the writ petition is re-called and the writ petition dismissed, especially since the writ petitioner is said to have been granted leave between 23.06.2005 to 31.03.2006, after the amendment deleting the proviso.

¶46

The contempt petition has been filed complaining

¶47

non-compliance of the judgment in the writ petition. In the context of the dismissal of the writ petition, the contempt case would also stand closed.

¶48

The review petition is allowed and the contempt case is closed. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶51

vku/-

¶52

[ true copy ]

State of Kerala v. Suja Purushothaman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Suja Purushothaman

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

Dr.Valyomana Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Saju S. Vs the Managing Director Ksfe

John Lawerence Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

Shyju E Oommen Vs a K Appukuttan

P.Sarojini Vs State of Kerala

Mathew A.A. Vs the State Bank of India