Disposed

K.v.Anandavally v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jun 2016WP(C)/20580/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached the Court aggrieved by an Audit Report directing re-fixation of pay. The Court directed the first respondent Government to consider the petitioner's representation within two months after hearing, taking into account relevant precedents and government orders, and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on re-fixation of pay within two months after granting opportunity of hearing.

K.v.Anandavally 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

FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/27TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20580 of 2016 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.V.ANANDAVALLY

¶8

HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM), AZHIKODE HIGH SCHOOL, AZHIKODE P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 009.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PALLATH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT (ANNEX), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KANNUR, THANA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 001.

¶13

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KANNUR-670 002.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LOWSY A.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 20580 of 2016 (V)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1:	COPY OF STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF A PAY IN THE HIGHER GRADE SCALE DTD.28.3.2001.
P2:	COPY OF STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY DTD.18.8.2006.
P3:	COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF AUDIT REPORT DTD.19.10.2014.
P4:	COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD.13.6.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
P5:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN OP NO.21833/2001 (Y).
P6:	COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD.5.6.2003 IN OP NO.12457/2001 (G) OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
P7:	COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD.1.4.2011 IN WPC NO.21010 OF 2008 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
P8:	COPY OF GO(RT)NO.1288/2015/G.EDN. DTD.30.3.2015.
P9:	COPY OF GO(RT)NO.5623/2014/G.EDN. DTD.19.12.2014.
P10:	COPY OF GO(RT)NO.5115/2015/G.EDN. DTD.3.11.2015.
P11:	COPY OF GO(RT)NO.5379/2015/G.EDN. DTD.16.11.2015.
P12:	COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DTD.14.6.2016.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

W.P.(C).No.20580 of 2016

¶28

Dated this the 17^th day of June, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner is working as High School Assistant (Malayalam) in Azhikode High School, Kannur District, which is an aided school regulated by the provisions contained in the Kerala Education Act and the Kerala Education Rules framed thereunder. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of Ext.P-3 Audit Report dated 19.10.2014 wherein there is a direction to re-fix the pay by reducing one increment and also a direction to refund excess drawal. Being aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P-3 Audit Report, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P-4 representation dated 13.6.2016 before the first respondent State Government. It is the contention of the petitioner that there are various rulings of this Court and the Administrative Tribunal that an employee whose pay is reduced consequent to the audit objection is entitled for re-option and that the petitioner is entitled to get necessary relief in the matter in the light of the legal principles laid down by this

¶31

Court in judgments as in Exts.P-5 to P-7. Ext.P-5, P-6 and P-7 are the judgments of this Court in O.P.No.21833 of 2001, O.P.No.12457 of 2001 and W.P.(C).No.21010 of 2008

¶32

respectively. The petitioner also places reliance on Exts. P8 to P11

¶33

W.P.(C).No.20580 of 2016 2

¶34

government orders in this regard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to seek a direction from this Court to direct the first respondent State Government to take a considered decision on Ext.P-4 representation after taking due note of the aspects borne out by Exts.P5 to P7 judgments and Exts.P8 to P11 Government Orders etc. It is in the light of these aspects the writ petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayers:-

¶35

i. To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to allow re-option to the petitioner for 2004 pay revision on 20.11.2006..

¶36

ii. To declare that the petitioner is eligible for reoption for 2004 pay revision on 20.11.2006.

¶37

iii. To issue orders directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass favourable orders on Ext.P4 within a time limit as fixed by the Hon'ble High Court.

¶38

Heard Sri.Murali Pallath, learned counsel appearing for

¶39

writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶40

Having regard to the facts and circumstances disclosed in the pleadings in the writ petition as regards the limited prayer now sought in this writ petition and without getting into the merits of the controversy, it is ordered that in case Ext.P-4 representation is still pending consideration before

¶41

W.P.(C).No.20580 of 2016 3

¶42

the first respondent State Government, then the competent authority of the first respondent State Government will take up the same for consideration without further delay and after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, will take a considered decision thereon, at the earliest at any rate within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioners' contentions based on Exts.P5 to P7 judgments and Exts.P8 to P11 Government Orders should be duly taken into consideration by the Government while taking the decision as directed above.

¶43

With these observations and directions, the writ petition (civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶44

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

PA TO JUDGE

¶47

avk

K.v.Anandavally v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Anandavally 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lasitha.D Vs State of Kerala

C v Thankamma Vs the Project Officer

C.R. Indukumar Vs the State of Kerala

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

K.D.Gopalakrishnan Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

Bhadran Vs State of Kerala