Allowed

Deepa George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Feb 2016WP(C)/26430/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner's arrears of salary from May 2015, rejecting the administration's non-payment due to a pending clarification letter. The court held that denying salary to a senior teacher while paying junior colleagues accommodated in the same category was unjust.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to pay arrears of salary for May 2015 onwards to the petitioner within two months and ensure future salary payment.

Deepa George 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 SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/23RD MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 26430 of 2015 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

DEEPA GEORGE, KUMBALAKKUNNEL, ANCHALPETTY P.O, PAMPAKUDA, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 673, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.

¶11

2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 686 673.

¶13

4. THE MANAGER,

¶14

T.T.V. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 686 673.

¶15

R1-R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ALOSYIUS

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 26430 of 2015 (C)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31.08.09. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14.08.10. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08.05.14. EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RTA BY PETITIONER DATED 25.5.15. EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.8.15 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

ANNEXURE R3(A): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.RA(2)13305/2011/K.DIS DATED 8/4/11

¶24

ANNEXURE R3(B): COPY OF THE REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION AS WELL AS THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATORY DIRECTION ABOUT THE CONTINUANCE OF THE PETITIONER WITH EFFECT FROM 15/7/007.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.V. ASHA, J.

------------------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No. 26430 of 2015

¶30

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2016

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner, who is working as HSA (Physical Science) in the T.T.V. Higher Secondary School, Muvattupuzha, under the jurisdiction of the third respondent, is aggrieved by non-payment of salary to her from May 2015 onwards. The T.T.V. Higher Secondary School is an aided school and the conditions of service of the petitioner are governed by the Kerala Educational

¶33

Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “KER” for short).

¶34

The petitioner commenced her service as U.P.S.A. on

¶35

15.06.1995. She was promoted as H.S.A. (Physical Science)

¶36

with effect from 02.06.1997. She is having Post Graduate

¶37

Degree in English also. The petitioner submits that there is

¶38

W.P.(C).No. 26430 of 2015 -2-

¶39

no reason for denying her salary. She continues to work in

¶40

the School and there is no order retrenching her. A post of

¶41

HSA is available in the school to accommodate her. It is also submitted that there are several HSAs juniors to her in the School who are rendered surplus but continuing as H.S.As. on being accommodated in the post of H.S.A. (English). She also claims protection from retrenchment provided in the G.O. (MS) 11/02/G.Edn. dated 07.01.2002, introducing the post of H.S.A. English and introducing the ratio of 1:1:1:1 among core subjects, to the teachers like her who were in service as on 07.01.2002.

¶42

Petitioner has produced staff fixation orders for the years 2010-11 and 2013-14, as Exts.P2 and P3. Ext.P2 staff fixation order for the year 2010-11 shows that the petitioner

¶43

was retained in the third post of H.S.A. (Natural Science) in order to avoid retrenchment. It is seen that 5 posts were

¶44

W.P.(C).No. 26430 of 2015 -3-

¶45

sanctioned for Physical Science; and 3 posts were sanctioned for Natural science as against two teachers working. There was no teacher for the third post of Natural

¶46

Science. Ext.P2 staff fixation order further shows that 2 H.S.A.’s in Mathematics Smt. Ligy Paul and Smt. Sherly Joseph who were rendered surplus, were accommodated against the post of H.S.A. (English). Similarly, 2 H.S.As in (Social Science) i,e Smt. Shiny Yohanan and Smt. Naicymol C.S. were also accommodated against the post of the H.S.A. (English). Thus 4 out of the 5 sanctioned posts of H.S.A. (English), were occupied by HSAs in core subjects. The teachers, who are accommodated against the post of H.S.A. (English) are juniors to petitioner, i.e they were appointed as HSAs subsequent to 02.06.1997. Similarly, in Ext.P3 staff fixation order issued by the District Educational Officer (D.E.O), it is seen that 6 H.S.A.’s including the

¶47

W.P.(C).No. 26430 of 2015

¶48

-4-

¶49

petitioner are ordered to remain as protected/retrenched

¶50

teachers for want of posts in reduced ratio.

¶51

The petitioner submits that she is denied salary

¶52

without any reason. There is no positive action, even after

¶53

submitting representations before the authorities.

¶54

The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that petitioner was rendered surplus in the 2007-08 staff fixation. But she was retained in the School

¶55

giving the benefit of the Govt order dated 07.01.2002. Thereafter consequent to the staff fixation for the year 2010-11 she was accommodated in the post of H.S.A. Natural Science, as per Annexure R3(a) order dated 08.04.2011 of the Director of Public Instruction (D.P.I.). By

¶56

that order, several teachers were re-arranged and accommodated in different posts. The teachers, who were aggrieved by that order took up the matter before the

¶57

W.P.(C).No. 26430 of 2015 -5Government claiming seniortiy and retention under

¶58

1:40 ratio between the teacher and pupils. Similarly, there were claims for accommodation in the post of H.S.A. (English) in the light of paragraph 3 of G.O. (MS) 11/02/G.Edn. dated 07.01.2002. Government thereafter, passed order dated 06.10.2012, directing to revise the staff fixation of the school from 2001-02 onwards applying 1:40 ratio in order to retain maximum number of surplus teachers. Based on this, the Director of Public Instructions forwarded a revised proposal on staff fixation for the year 2001-02 onwards on 27.12.2013, requesting Government to accord sanction to implement the same. It is stated that thereafter Government in its letter dated 5.9.2014, sought for some clarifications including that of retention of the petitioner in the post of H.S.A. (Natural Science). Clarification are also sought with respect to retention of

¶59

W.P.(C).No. 26430 of 2015 -6-

¶60

another teacher who is H.S.A. (Social Science) in the post of

¶61

H.S.A. (Natural Science). It is stated that the D.E.O. has forwarded Annexure R3(b) report to the D.P.I. in terms of the clarification sought. It is this letter seeking clarification

¶62

which is stated to be the reason for denying salary to the petitioner.

¶63

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and considered the rival

¶64

contentions and pleadings.

¶65

From the orders Exhibit R3(a) as well as

¶66

R3(b), it can be seen that the petitioner has been working as H.S.A. (Physical Science) on promotion to that post, from 02.06.1997 onwards. At the same time, there are several

¶67

teachers in the High School in several subjects, who commenced service subsequent to her, who are seen retained in the school, accommodatiing them in the posts

¶68

W.P.(C).No. 26430 of 2015 -7-

¶69

of HSAs. Annexure R3(a) shows that 5 posts of H.S.A.

¶70

(Physical Science) are sanctioned as against 6 teachers

¶71

working. Similarly, there are 11 H.S.As in Mathematics as against 6 sanctioned posts. There is only one HSA in English as against 5 sanctioned posts. There are only 2 HSAs in Natural Science as against 3 sanctioned posts of

¶72

H.S.A.(Natural Science). The details of posts of HSAs

¶73

sanctioned and actual no of teachers working in each

¶74

subject are as follows :

¶75

H.S.A.	P.S.	5	6
''	N.S.	3	2
''	Maths	6	11
''	S.S.	5	7
''	English	5	1
		----------	----------
	Total	24 =====	27 =====

¶76

W.P.(C).No. 26430 of 2015

¶77

-8-

¶78

Therefore, it can be seen that there is only one

¶79

H.S.A. (English) working in the School as against 5 sanctioned posts and that the remaining 4 posts are occupied by the teachers in other subjects including those who got promotion as HSAs subsequent to the petitioner. From Exhibit R3(a) itself, it can be seen that M/s Jijo Joseph and Shiny Yohannan who were promoted as H.S.A. (Mathematics) on 06.06.1997 and 10.06.1997 respectively, were accommdated in the posts of HSA English on being rendered surplus. It is also seen that M/s Naicymol C.S and Girija P.Nair who were also promoted subsequent to petitioner were accommodated in the posts of HSA English.

¶80

In view of the fact that the petitioner was in service as on 07.01.2002 when the post of H.S.A. (English)

¶81

was introduced and several of H.S.A.'s in other subjects, who were promoted subsequent to her are seen accommodated

¶82

W.P.(C).No. 26430 of 2015 -9-

¶83

in the posts of H.S.A. (English) as stated above, giving them

¶84

the benefit of paragraph 3 of the Govt order dated 7.1.2002,

¶85

I do not find any reason not to extend that benefit to petitioner in preference to such of the junior HSAs or to deny salary to the petitioner. As long as those H.S.A's, who got promotion subsequent to the petitioner and rendered excess but accommodated in the post of H.S.A. (English) are being paid salary, petitioner is also entitled to be paid salary either accommodating her applying the ratio of 1:40 / 1:35 between teacher and pupils or against one of the posts of H.S.A.(English) or otherwise. There is no acceptable explanation in the counter affidavit for the denial of salary to petitioner. It is evident that the respondents are in the process of re-arrangement of teachers who are rendered surplus in the staff fixation in order to see that maximum number of teachers are retained in the School. At any rate,

¶86

W.P.(C).No. 26430 of 2015 -10-

¶87

there cannot be a situation where a senior hand like petitioner is denied salary while junior HSAs surplus in their respective subjects are retained in the posts of other subjects and paid salary. There is no justification in denying salary to petitioner as long as she is not ousted in accordance with law.

¶88

In the above circumstances, there shall be a direction to the respondents to see that the petitioner is paid the salary attached to the post of HSA. The arrears of salary for

¶89

the period from May 2015 shall be disbursed to her within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶90

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶91

Sd/-

¶92

P.V. ASHA

¶93

bpr

Deepa George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepa George 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deputy General Manager, Sbt Vs S.Sankar and Another

State Bank of Travancore Vs M/S.Target Overseas Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Ratheesh M.D. Vs Iringalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No. 55

Malik Deenar Public School Vs Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission

Hemalatha S.V. Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Employees Pension Board

K.v.Krishnan Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Employees'Pens