Disposed

Lasitha.D v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jun 2016WP(C)/20481/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an aided school teacher, approached this court seeking directions for the consideration of her representations regarding back service benefits and appointment arising from non-regularisation, directing the State government to decide without delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the competent State Government authority to consider pending representations and pass a decision within two months, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

Lasitha.D 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/26TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20481 of 2016 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

LASITHA D. HSA(MATHEMATICS), MULAMANA H.S.S., ANAKUDY, ANAKUDY P.O., VAMANAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVINDRA NATH

¶9

SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

msv/

¶15

WP(C).No. 20481 of 2016 (I)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 04.06.2008 P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.20223 OF 2009 DATED 14.06.2012

¶19

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.09.2012

¶20

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 29.08.2015.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶22

------------------------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

W.P(C).No.20481 Of 2016

¶29

Dated this the 16th day of June, 2016.

¶30

The petitioner is working as a High School Assistant (H.S.A), (Mathematics) in an Aided School regulated by Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules framed under the Kerala Education Act. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of her earlier valid appointment in the same post she has statutory claim under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A which was ignored by the Manager by which another person was appointed to the vacancy concerned. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner had preferred a revision before the Government in which the respondent-State by Ext.P-1 revisional order dated 4.6.2008 had directed the Manager of the Aided School concerned to appoint the petitioner in the next vacancy. It is pointed out that even as on the date of issuing revisional order dated 4.6.2008, there was a vacancy in existence to which the petitioner could have been easily accommodated so as to honour her Rule 51A claim but that the Manager postponed the decision in the matter of appointment of the petitioner. The Manager challenged Ext.P-1 revisional order by filing a Writ Petition before this

¶31

::2::

¶32

W.P(C).No.20481 Of 2016

¶33

Court and the petitioner also constrained to file a Writ Petition seeking a mandamus to direct implementation of Ext.P-1 herein (revisional order). By Ext.P-2 common judgment rendered on 14.6.2012 in those two Writ Petitions [W.P.(C).Nos.25394/2008 & 20223/2009], this Court rejected the plea in the Writ Petition filed by the Manager and had allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner herein. Thereafter it is stated that the petitioner was appointed in the available vacancy on 26.08.2009 by the Manager. Since no effective steps were taken by the educational authority concerned in the matter of approval of the appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to submit Ext.P-3 representation dated 22.9.2012 and Ext.P-4 representation dated 29.8.2015 before the respondent-State seeking appropriate directions for grant of service benefits from 4.6.2008 consequent on Ext.P-2 judgment as also the benefits in accordance with her eligibility for protection in terms of G.O(P).No.112/2001/G.Edn. dated 26.3.2011. It is stated that those representations remain unattended and unconsidered. It is in the light of these facts and circumstances that the petitioner has instituted the instant Writ Petition with the following prayer:

¶34

::3::

¶35

W.P(C).No.20481 Of 2016

¶36

“a. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction commanding the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any time within a timeframe to be fixed by this Honourable Court.”

¶37

Heard Sri.S.Ramesh Babu, learned Senior Counsel,

¶38

instructed by Sri.N.Krishna Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State.

¶39

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is limiting his prayer for the time being for a direction from this Court to direct the respondentGovernment to consider Exts.P-3 and P-4 representations and pass necessary orders thereon. In the light of the facts and circumstances disclosed in the pleadings of this Writ Petition and taking note of the above said limited prayer made by the petitioner and without entering into the merits of the controversy, it is ordered that in case Exts.P-3 and P-4 representations are still pending consideration, then the competent

¶40

authority of the State Government shall take up the same for consideration without any further delay and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the Manager of the Aided School concerned, will take a considered decision thereon in accordance with law, after duly adverting to the submissions and contentions that may be advanced by both sides. Decision in the

¶41

::4::

¶42

W.P(C).No.20481 Of 2016

¶43

matter shall be rendered by the competent authority of the respondentState without much delay, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Since Exts.P-3 and P-4 representations were submitted some time back, in order to enable the respondent-Government to take up the same for consideration without further delay, the petitioner will produce copies of those representations as well as a copy of this Writ Petition along with certified copy of this judgment before the respondentGovernment.

¶44

With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶45

ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

¶46

bkn/-

Lasitha.D v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lasitha.D 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.R. Indukumar Vs the State of Kerala

K. Sreelatha Vs Government of Kerala

K.P.Pramod Kumar Vs State of Kerala

C v Thankamma Vs the Project Officer

K.v.Anandavally Vs State of Kerala

Venganoor Grama Panchayath(Spl.Grade) Vs Sunil Justus & Others