Allowed

V.M.Latha v. the Deputy Director

Kerala HC14 Mar 2016WP(C)/4388/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order that re-fixed the petitioner's pay. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the education officer to pay all benefits and revise pensionary benefits to be harmonized with a precedent judgment favouring similarly placed teachers in the same school.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; direction to pay all benefits; revision of pensionary benefits.

V.M.Latha Vs the Deputy Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/24TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 4388 of 2012 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

V.M.LATHA , H.S.A (SOCIAL SCIENCE), HIGH SCHOOL, PERINGOD, PERINGOD.P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 535.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD - 678 101.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM - 678 001.

¶12

3. THE HEAD MISTRESSES, HIGH SCHOOL, PERINGOD, PERINGOD.P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 535.

¶13

R3 BY ADVS. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.ARUN THOMAS

¶14

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.REJI JOSEPH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

WP(C).No. 4388 of 2012 (W)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT. P1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION/REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL ON 12.4.2011.
EXT. P2 :	TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2011.
EXT. P3 :	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO.296/2006 DATED 14.7.2006 ISSUED BY THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
EXT. P4 :	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B1/8565/10/KDIS DATED 23.8.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXT. P5 :	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.6.2006 IN WP(C)NO.8942/2003.
EXT. P6 :	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.8.2010 IN WP(C)NO.25539/10.
EXT. P7 :	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.11.2011 IN WP(C)NO.25539/10.
RESPONDE	NTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶25

======================== W.P.(C). No.4388 of 2012

¶26

¶27

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order dated 23.8.2011, by which direction has been issued re-fixing the pay of the petitioner from 10.7.2001 onwards. This was passed based on Ext.P3 order dated 14.07.2006.

¶30

The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner was appointed as U.P.S.A (on probation) with effect from 12.09.1983. On 10.07.1993 she was granted Primary Teacher's first Higher Grade on completion of 10 years of service. With effect from 23.07.1997, she was promoted as H.S.A (Social Science). On completion of 8 years service as H.S.A (Social Science), she was granted Higher Grade in the scale of H.S.A at 5000-8150 with effect from 10.07.2001. She was₹ drawing a pay of 11,910/- in the scale of pay of 9500-16650₹ ₹ with effect from 1.7.2006.

¶31

In the meantime, without any notice and without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, Ext.P4 order had been issued, directing the third respondent to make entries in the service book and seek refund of the excess amount drawn by the petitioner at the earliest. It is submitted that Ext.P4 order is

¶32

W.P.C. No. 4388 of 2012

¶33

-2-

¶34

unjustified and against Ext.P5 judgment of this Court.

¶35

It is brought to the notice of this Court that as per judgment dated 25.5.2015 in W.P.(C).No.25539 of 2010, this Court had considered the entitlement of similarly placed persons and after reference to the very same Government Order (Ext.P3), passed an order declaring that audit objection relying upon Ext.P5 G.O. dated 14.7.2006 has no application in the case of the petitioners and therefore appropriate direction had been issued.

¶36

The materials placed on record clearly indicates that the petitioner is also similarly placed as that of petitioners in W.P.(C). No.25539 of 2010 and they come from the very same school itself. Under such circumstance, the aforesaid judgment clearly apply to the present case.

¶37

This writ petition is hence allowed. Ext.P4 is set aside and there will be a direction to the second respondent to pay all the benefits to the petitioner without reference to Ext.P4. The pensionary benefits of the petitioner shall be revised and paid accordingly.

¶38

sd/-

¶39

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶40

kp/-14.3.16

V.M.Latha v. the Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.M.Latha v. the Deputy Director

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

Jose V.S. Vs Mini Manoj

K.M.Daniel Vs Dr. Vishwas

John Mathew Vs Dr.Rajan Khobragade

Kerala State Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs V.P. Thrimathy

Ezhupunna North Coir Co.Op.Society Vs Asst.Engineer

Neerolpan Valeed Vs the Intelligence Officer (Ib)