Partly allowed

Bhargavikutty K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 May 2016WP(C)/4545/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought conversion of part-time to full-time status with retrospective benefits. Court directed Government to grant full-time benefits retrospectively from 30.12.2009, citing an administrative omission rather than intentional exclusion, dismissing claims for earlier dates or spouse benefits.

What did the court decide?

Direct the Government to grant full-time benefit from 30.12.2009 within two months.

Bhargavikutty K. Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | 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 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016/6TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4545 of 2011 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

BHARGAVIKUTTY.K,

¶8

CRAFT TEACHER, ICHLAMPADY AIDED SENIOR BASIC SCHOOL, ICHLAMPADY P.O., KUMBALA, KASARAGOD-671 321.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARAGOD-671 001.

¶13

3. THE MANAGER, ICHLAMPADY AIDED SENIOR BASIC SCHOOL, ICHLAMPADY P.O., KUMBALA, KASARAGOD-671 321.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.FAZIL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

WP(C).No. 6775 of 2011 (V)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.1256/2000/G.EDN DATED 28.03.2000.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2000.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.10.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE TIME TABLE FOR VARIOUS YEARS.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.4896/2000 DATED 30.11.2000.

¶25

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.1324/2001/G.EDN DATED 30.03.2001.

¶26

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.2244/2000/G.EDN DATED 03.06.2000.

¶27

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.3310/2004 DATED 31.07.2004.

¶28

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.06.2009 IN W.P(C).NO.3459/2007.

¶29

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.09.2009 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.5664/08 DATED 27.12.2008.

¶31

EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO.35697/2004.

¶32

EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2009 IN W.P(C).NO.30447/2009.

¶33

EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.3090/2010 DATED 16.07.2010.

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C) No.4545 of 2011

¶41

Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2016

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P14 to the extent her claim for full time benefit as Craft Teacher was granted only with effect from the date of Ext.P14 order i.e from 16.7.2010.

¶44

The petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Craft Teacher on 18.12.1986 in Aided Senior Basic School, Kumbla, Kasargod District. The said appointment was against a voluntary retirement vacancy of a Craft Teacher. The post was changed from weaving to 'cutting and tailoring'. Though her appointment was not initially approved, the Assistant Educational Officer, Kumbala on the basis of G.O(Rt) No.1344/92/G.Edn dated 21.4.1992 approved her appointment for the period from 18.12.1986 to 31.3.1987 and from 1.6.1987 to 14.7.1990 as Part Time Craft Teacher. Thereafter petitioner continued without approval. Later, on the basis of her further representations, Government issued Ext.P1 order dated 28.03.2000, restoring a post of Part Time Craft Teacher in the school from 14.7.1990

¶45

:2:

¶46

W.P.(C) No.4545 of 2011

¶47

onwards and accordingly her appointment was approved as Part Time Craft Teacher without any time limit.

¶48

The petitioner claims for full time benefit saying that she was engaged in teaching students as in the case of full time teachers. The petitioner has produced Ext.P4 time table in support of her contention. The petitioner also relies on Exts.P5 and Ext.P6 orders by which the part time craft teachers were

¶49

made full time, by the Government. She had approached this Court seeking the benefit of those orders by filing W.P.(C) No.3459 of 2007. The petitioner says that, that writ petition was later dismissed on the submission that it was not pressed, in order to take up the matter before the Government. Thereafter on the basis of her representation Ext.P10 and direction of this Court in Ext.P13 judgment dated 27.10.2009 in W.P.(C) No.30447 of 2009, the Government considered her representation and passed Ext.P14 order dated 16.7.2010 granting her full time benefit with effect from the date of order, subject to the conditions stipulated in G.O(Ms) No.257/2009/G.Edn. dated 31.12.2009. Government found that full time benefit was granted to 102 part time specialist teachers

¶50

:3:

¶51

W.P.(C) No.4545 of 2011

¶52

who completed 15 years of part time service, as per the aforesaid Government order dated 30.12.2009. But in that order the petitioner's name was not included, since the Director of Public Instruction had omitted to include her name in that list.

¶53

It is as against that order that the petitioner has approached this Court with the complaint that full time benefit was not granted to her either with effect from the date on which 102 part time specialist teachers were granted the benefit with effect from 30.12.2009 if at all her request for grant of full time benefit with effect from the date of completion of five years of service was not granted.

¶54

The Government has filed a counter affidavit saying that it had directed approval of her appointment as per Ext.P1 order as an act of grace taking a lenient view, even though she was not eligible for the same as per rules. The Government Pleader states that if at all her claim that she worked as full time teacher, was accepted, the same was not in the interest of the school or the department as there was no direction from the department to the petitioner to work as full time teacher. It is also stated that the petitioner did not have sufficient periods to work as full time craft

¶55

:4:

¶56

W.P.(C) No.4545 of 2011

¶57

teacher and she is not eligible for any benefits in terms of the provisions contained in KER. It is stated that there was no reason for issuing any further orders in favour of the petitioner.

¶58

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner claims full time benefit with effect from the date of completion of five years of service. There is no Government order which provides for grant of such benefits to Craft Teachers. No rule in KER provides for such benefit to a Craft Teacher. The petitioner's claim is on the basis of certain orders issued by the Government as per Exts.P1, P5, P8 and P11. But none of these orders provides for granting full time benefit to a Part Time Craft Teacher. The petitioner's case has already been considered by the Government and it chose to grant her full time benefit as given to 102 others in G.O (Ms) No.257/2009/G.Edn. dated 31.12.2009. It is pointed out that those teachers were granted benefit with effect from 30.12.2009. But in the case of the petitioner, the benefit is limited and is available to her from 16.7.2010 only. The Government have already found that it was only on account of the omission in including her name in the list forwarded by the

¶59

W.P.(C) No.4545 of 2011

¶60

:5:

¶61

Director of Public Instruction that she was not granted the benefit along with other 102 teachers. Having found such omission, it was not fair or just on the part of the Government to limit the benefit to the petitioner from 16.7.2010 onwards and in not granting the benefit from 30.12.2009. At the same time, I do not find any reason to allow any other claim raised by the petitioner.

¶62

Therefore, there will be a direction to Government to

¶63

pass appropriate orders to grant the petitioner full time benefit accordingly with effect from the date on which 102 part time specialist teachers were granted full time benefit, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶64

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶67

rkc

Bhargavikutty K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhargavikutty K. 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

Lekshmikutty Amma Vs State of Kerala

V.Velayudhan Chettiar Vs Kseb

Ishabi Vs the District Collector, Thrissur and Ors.

P.C.Supriya Vs State of Kerala

Sreenivasan Vs the Kongad Grama Panchayath and Another

Satheesan Nair Vs Kerala State Electricity Board