Disposed

K. Sreelatha v. Government of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jun 2016WP(C)/31009/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner, a government teacher, challenged the inaction on her representation seeking modification of an appointment order. The High Court directed the Government to consider the representation within two months, affording the petitioner a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Government to consider the pending representation within two months, granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before the manager renders a decision.

K. Sreelatha Vs Government 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/25TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 31009 of 2015 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K. SREELATHA, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.K.V.MOHANA KUMARAN, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (HSST) (HINDI), PULIYAPARAMB HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KODUNTHIRAPULLY, PALAKKAD -678 004, (THIRUVONAM, KOLATHUR, VARIAM, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD -678 009)

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.C.P.SIVADASAN NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶11

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, SANTHI NAGAR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,

¶13

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001

¶14

3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, B2 BLOCK, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM -676 505

¶15

4. THE MANAGER, PULIYAPRAMB HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KODUNTHIRAPPULLY, PALAKKAD -680 004

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANITHA RAVINDRAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

WP(C).No. 31009 of 2015 (A)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

P1:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTMENT DTD 12/12/2001 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶23

P2:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 2/11/2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶24

P3:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 15/10/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶25

P4:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(MS)NO. 351/2004/G.EDN DTD 20-11-2004 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT

¶26

P5:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTAITON DTD 21/10/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

==================

W.P.(C).No. 31009 of 2015

¶35

==================

¶36

Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2016

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The prayers in this Writ Petition are as follows:

¶39

“i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 representation, forthwith.

¶40

ii. issue such other writ, order or direction which may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶41

It is stated that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P-5

¶42

representation dated 21.10.2014 before the 1^st respondent Government, wherein she has sought modification to Ext.P-4 G.O. (Ms).No.351/2004/G.Edn. dated 20.11.2004 issued by the Government. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even after the lapse of more than one and a half years, the grievances of the petitioner in Ext.P-5 representation have not been attended to. In the light of these aspects, the petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the aforementioned prayers.

¶43

Heard Sri.Babu Joseph Karuvathazha, learned counsel for

¶44

the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for

¶45

W.P.(C).31009/2015 - : 2 :-

¶46

respondents 1 to 3.

¶47

In the facts and circumstances disclosed in the pleadings of the Writ Petition and without going into the merits of the controversy, it is ordered that, in case Ext.P-5 representation dated 21.10.2014 is still pending, then the competent authority of the 1^st respondent Government will take up the same for consideration without much delay and after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 4^th respondent manager should render a considered decision thereon, in accordance with law after adverting to the submissions and contentions of the petitioner. Needful in this regard should be done within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶48

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

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy///

¶51

P.S. To Judge.

K. Sreelatha v. Government of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Sreelatha v. Government 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

K.P.Pramod Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Kuttappan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Mahakavi Kumaranasan Smaraka Sangham Vs Binu Thachadi

C.R. Indukumar Vs the State of Kerala

C v Thankamma Vs the Project Officer

Lasitha.D Vs State of Kerala