Quashed

M.Prasad Chacko v. Secretary, General Educationa

Kerala HC19 Dec 2016WP(C)/19018/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a physical education teacher, challenged an order denying salary for a specific period, claiming he actually worked. The Court held the claim was not considered by the Government, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Government to reconsider the request after hearing the petitioner within four months.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P7 set aside; Government directed to reconsider the request for salary for the period actually worked after hearing the petitioner within four months.

M.Prasad Chacko Vs Secretary, General… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 19018 of 2009 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.PRASAD CHACKO, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER (PROTECTED) T.P.S.HIGH SCHOOL, TRIKKUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR.

¶12

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT RAJI T BHASKAR

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.V.

¶16

WPC NO 19018 OF 2009:

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶19

P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO B3-25730/88/K.DIS DATED 26.2.1990 ISSUED BY THE DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,THRISSUR.

¶20

P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP NO 2978/01 DATED 5.10.2001.

¶21

P3: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO I13/2000/G.EDN DATED 6.4.2000.

¶22

P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT AS PER LR NO 35826/KI/05/G.EDN DATED 28.7.2005.

¶23

P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTED DATED 1.7.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶24

P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 29.9.2008 IN WPC NO 25948/08.

¶25

P7: COPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER G.O.(RT) NO 361/2009/G.EDN DATED 23.1.2009.

¶26

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶27

R1(A): COPY OF G.O.(P) NO 112/2001/G.EDN DATED 26.3.2001.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶32

W.P(C).No. 19018 of 2009

¶33

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 19^th December, 2016

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶36

The challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P7 order denying the petitioner salary for the period from 1.10.1987. The petitioner was appointed as physical education teacher in an aided school on 1.7.1985 and due to fall of student strength, he was relieved from service on 30.9.1987. He claims that the Manager had taken up the matter in appeal and revision and that he had actually worked as Physical Education Teacher. It is submitted that he had preferred Exhibit P5 representation before the Government seeking payment of salary for the period from 1.10.1987 till 2006. It is submitted that the said request was rejected by Exhibit P7. The petitioner seeks reconsideration of the order of the Government on the ground that he had actually worked and that several similarly situated persons who had continued in service had been regularised by Government order dated 26.3.2001.

¶37

¶38

WP(C).19018/09

¶39

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that this is a matter for the Government to consider. The claim raised by the petitioner that he actually continued to work against the post has not been considered by the Government. Therefore, Exhibit P7 is set aside. There will be a direction to the Government to consider the request made by the petitioner for salary for the period he had actually worked. Orders in this regard shall be passed by the Government after hearing the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶41

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶42

vgs23/12

M.Prasad Chacko v. Secretary, General Educationa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Prasad Chacko v. Secretary, General Educationa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shijulal B.R. Vs State of Kerala

Beena Varghese Vs the State of Kerala

Babu.K.Damodar Vs the Chairman, Coffee Board

M.K.Unnikrishnan Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Sreekala S. Vs State of Kerala

V.T.Raghunath Vs High Court of Kerala