Allowed

Dhanya Mithran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Feb 2017WP(C)/26257/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Sanskrit teacher, challenged orders denying her full-time benefits based on failure to teach Group C subjects. The Court held that since Group C diversion was available until 2010-11, the AEO could not reject benefits based on lack of subject diversification and awarded full-time status and monetary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P12 and P13 set aside; petitioner's appointment approved as full-time Sanskrit teacher based on G.O. (RT) No.2020/12/G.Edn; monetary benefits to be calculated and disbursed within three month

Dhanya Mithran Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/25TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 26257 of 2013 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER:-

¶7

DHANYA MITHRAN, AGED 24 YEARS, W/O.PRAKASAH P., L.G.SANSKRIT PART TIME SANSKRIT TEACHER, PERINGODE BASIC UPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, POST PERINGODE, PARASSERY, KONGAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 631.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:-

¶10

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

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD - 678 014.

¶13

4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PARLI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 612.

¶14

5. THE MANAGER, N.E.UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PARLI EDUCATION SUB DISTRICT, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 641.

¶15

6. THE MANAGER, PERINGODE BASIC UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, POST PERINGODE, PARASSERY, KONGAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 631.

¶16

7. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶17

R1 TO R4,R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN R6 BY ADV. SRI.T.I.UNNIRAJA

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

WP(C).No. 26257 of 2013 (F)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 21.08.2006.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.D.DIS.C/2665/07 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 31.07.2007.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2(A). A TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.D.DIS.C/2346/06 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.07.2007.

¶26

EXHIBIT P2(B). A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.43/78/G.EDN DATED 13/4/1978

¶27

EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER D.DIS. 25220/08/RA(3)/DPI OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.04.2008.

¶28

EXHIBIT P4. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER B5-3879/08/K.DIS.OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 27.08.2008.

¶29

EXHIBIT P4(A). A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER D.DIS.C/1786/06 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.07.2006.

¶30

EXHIBIT P4(B). A TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.D.DIS.C/2221/08 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 05.08.2008.

¶31

EXHIBIT P5. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G1/19904/09/DPI/K. DATED 3/8/2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶32

EXHIBIT P6. A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.371/2000/G.EDN. DATED 13.11.2000.

¶33

EXHIBIT P7. A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.2167/2010/G.EDN.DATED 25.05.2010.

¶34

EXHIBIT P8. A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.1298/2011/G.EDN.DATED 30.03.2011.

¶35

EXHIBIT P9. A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.3460/85/G.EDN.DATED 17.09.1985.

¶36

EXHIBIT P10. A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.25021 OF 2004-D DATED 26.07.2004.

¶37

EXHIBIT P11. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT)NO.2020/12/G.EDN. DATED 02.05.2012.

¶38

EXHIBIT P12. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/205/2011 DATED 24.08.2012 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶39

EXHIBIT P13. A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.3586/2013/GH.EDN. DATED 30.08.2013.

¶40

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶46

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.26257 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2017

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibits P12 and P13 orders issued by the AEO.

¶49

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶50

It is submitted that the petitioner has been appointed as full time Sanskrit teacher against a sanctioned post in 21.08.2002. It is stated that the AEO had, by Exhibit P2 staff fixation proceedings, declined to grant full time benefits to the petitioner on the ground that G.O.(MS) 98/88/G.Edn dated 19.05.1988 dispensed with Group C diversion. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said Government Order doing away Group C diversion had been cancelled by G.O.(MS)124/1988 Gen.Edn. dated 20.07.1998 and Group C diversion has been made available till the academic year 2010-11. Pursuant to a representation preferred by the petitioner, Exhibit P11 order is

¶51

W.P.(C).No.26257/13

¶52

¶53

passed by the Government on 02.05.2012 holding that executive orders extending the benefits of Group C diversion had been extended till 2010-2011 and the AEO was directed to review the appointment of the petitioner and appoint her as Full Time Sanskrit teacher, if sufficient periods were available for diversion from Group 'C' subjects in the respective subjects during the period. However, pursuant to Exhibit P11 order of the Government, the AEO, by Exhibit P12 found that though the petitioner had been allotted 27 periods a week by the Headmaster. The petitioner had not taught any subject other than Sanskrit. It is therefore stated that it was not possible to grant full time benefits to the petitioner from 2006-2007 in the initially appointed school and from 2008-2009 in the transferred school. The petitioner again took up the matter in revision. However, by Exhibit P13 order dated 30.08.2013, it was found that the petitioner had worked for only 12 periods per week and would therefore not be entitled for monetary benefits of the full time post.

¶54

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 4^th respondent contending that Group C diversion was allowed only to those

¶55

W.P.(C).No.26257/13

¶56

¶57

teachers who had at least 8 periods of work and 5 years continuous service. It is further stated that both the schools in which the petitioner had worked had only less than 15 periods of work per week in Sanskrit and the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of full time, since she had not worked for the requisite periods.

¶58

I have considered the contentions advanced. It is clear from

¶59

Exhibit P1 that the petitioner was appointed as Full Time Sanskrit Teacher and the said appointment was approved with effect from 21.08.2006. It is also clear that if the Group C diversion had been granted, the petitioner would have not worked for 15 periods or above and would have been entitled to full time benefits by Group C diversion going by Exhibit P2 staff fixation order. It is admitted that the benefit of Group C diversion had been made available by the Government till the academic year 2010-11 and was recalled only thereafter. It is clear from Exhibit P4(a) and (b) staff fixation orders that the petitioner could have been granted full time benefits with the Group C diversion as had been made available in the case of similarly situated teachers. The learned counsel for the

¶60

W.P.(C).No.26257/13

¶61

¶62

petitioner relies on Exhibit P6 Government Order dated 3.11.2000 and other Government Orders issued allowing Group C diversion and conversion of post of part-time in respect of identically situated language teachers by Exhibit P7 and P8, as well as judgments of this Court.

¶63

It is not in dispute that Group C diversion was available till the academic year 2010-2011. This is stated by the Government in Exhibit P11 order also. The only question which the AEO could have considered pursuant to Exhibit P11 was if the Group C diversion had been extended to the petitioner, she would have been entitled to full time benefits. It is apparent from Exhibit P11 that this aspect was not considered by the AEO. The AEO went on to state that the petitioner had not carried out any teaching duties in subjects other than the Sanskrit. This was completely irrelevant and not an issue which the AEO could have legally considered in the light of Exhibit P11 Government Order. The only issue which could have been considered by the AEO was whether the post could be sanctioned as a full time post on Group C diversion. From Exhibit P12 itself, it is apparent that there were more than 15 periods of work available after Group C

¶64

W.P.(C).No.26257/13

¶65

¶66

diversion. If that be so, Exhibit P11 ought to have been implemented by the AEO and the petitioner would have been entitled to full time benefits from the respective dates of appointment and even on inter-management transfer. The rejection of the petitioner's claim by Exhibit P12 was therefore completely vitiated. Going by the Government Orders, the petitioner was entitled for full time benefits on Group C diversion. If that be so, he will be entitled to continue as full time Sanskrit teacher and would also be entitled to all monetary benefits since the rejection of the claim was illegal and vitiated.

¶67

In the above view of the matter, Exhibits P12 and P13 are set aside. It is directed that the petitioner's appointment as Sanskrit teacher shall be approved on the basis of Exhibit P11 Government Order. The monetary benefits due to the petitioner shall be calculated and disbursed to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶68

sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶69

Dhanya Mithran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanya Mithran 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shameer P. and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

Muhammed Kaseem.a Vs State of Kerala

Sathyapalan Vs Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University

Vasantha a. Vs State of Kerala

V.v.Prasanna Vs State of Kerala and Another

Anof Kumar K.S. Vs Kerala State Textile Corporation Limited