Allowed

S.Suja v. the State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC22 Mar 2017WP(C)/28959/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition challenging orders rejecting a teacher's claim for unpaid salary. The court found the teacher legally entitled to retention and service based on student-teacher ratios and prior government orders. Impugned orders denying salary due to lack of documentary evidence were set aside as erroneous.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders setting aside salary claims were set aside. The petitioner is entitled to continue in service from July 14, 2003, and receive all consequential monetary benefits calculated and dis

S.Suja Vs the State of Kerala and Others — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/1ST CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 28959 of 2010 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

S.SUJA, UPSA R.M. UP SCHOOL, KALLARAKONAM, PAKALKURI P.O, PALLIKKAL , KILIMANOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SAJI MANDIRAM, MULLANALLOOR P.O, NAVAIKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ

¶9

SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (H) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

4. THE HEAD MISTRESS RM UP SCHOOL, KALLARAKONAM, PAKALKURI P.O, PALLIKKAL, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

5. THE MANAGER, RM UP SCHOOL, KALLARAKONAM, PAKALKURI P.O, PALLIKKAL, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

R1 TO R3 & R6 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN R5 BY ADV. SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-02-2017, THE COURT ON 22-03-2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd.

¶20

WP(C).No. 28959 of 2010 (T)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P)NO. 175/99/G.EDN DATED 26.07.1999 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA GENERAL EDUCATION (J) DEPARTMENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS)NO. 240/2000/G.EDN DATED 24.07.2000 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D.DIS/C/3358/2003 DATED 03.07.2003 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B4/21506/04/DDE DATED 28.10.2004.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER AND MAINTAINED BY THE FOURTH AND FIFTH RESPONDENTS.

¶28

EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P)NO. 338/04/G.EDN DATED 10.11.2004 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. I/J2/05/G.EDN DATED 27.01.2005 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D.DIS/40190/2005/RA(1)/DPI DATED 04.05.2005 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. NIL DATED 15.07.2005 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT MANAGER TO THE DPI.

¶32

EXHIBIT P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C2641/2005 DATED 31.08.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXHIBIT P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.10.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶34

EXHIBIT P12: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.12.2006 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXHIBIT P13: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2007.

¶36

EXHIBIT P14: A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE DATED 20.02.2007 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶37

EXHIBIT P15: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D.DIS.1835/06/RA (1) DPI DATED 12.03.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶38

WP(C).No. 28959 of 2010 (T)

¶39

EXHIBIT P16: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 61479/H1/07/G.EDN DATED 14.01.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶40

EXHIBIT P17: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 6511/H1/08 G.EDN DATED 18.09.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶41

EXHIBIT P18: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 15779/H1/09 G.EDN DATED 04.04.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶42

EXHIBIT P19: A TRUE COPY OF LETTERS ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICERS OF CHADAYAMANGALAM, SUB DISTRICT.

¶43

EXHIBIT P19(A): A TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICERS OF PONNAI, SUB DISTRICTS.

¶44

EXHIBIT P20: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.07.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶45

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶51

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.28959 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2017

¶52

JUDGMENT

¶53

1.This writ petition is preferred challenging Exhibits P15 to P18 orders and seeking directions to the respondents to disburse the pay and allowances to the petitioner for the academic year 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 and all consequential benefits.

¶54

2.The petitioner was appointed as UPSA in the 5^th respondent's school on 15.07.1999 and the appointment was duly approved. There was fall in student strength in the academic year 20032004. The petitioner was entitled for retention on applying the 1:40 teacher-student ratio provided by Exhibits P1 and P2 orders. However, the benefit was denied to her and she was retrenched by Exhibit P3 staff fixation order. The matter was taken in appeal and by Exhibit P8 order the DPI held that the school was entitled for retention of an additional division by applying the 1:40 ratio and the AEO was directed to pass consequential orders. The Manager, by Exhibit P9 proceedings, had reported to the DPI that the petitioner had

¶55

W.P.(C).No.28959/10

¶56

¶57

been working against continuously and that the AEO was refusing to pass orders, as directed by DPI. This communication is produced and marked as Exhibit P9. Thereafter, by Exhibit P10 order, the AEO directed the petitioner's retention. The petitioner thereupon requested for grant of salary for the academic years 2003-2004 and 20042005 when she was illegally kept out of service. Exhibit P13 certificate evidencing the fact that she had worked for the period 15.07.2003 to 14.07.2005 was also produced. However, by the impugned orders, the claim for salary was rejected on the ground that there was no documentary evidence to prove that the petitioner had actually worked in the school. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition.

¶58

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent.

¶59

4.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Exhibits P9 and P13 had been produced before the Educational

¶60

W.P.(C).No.28959/10

¶61

¶62

authorities which clearly show that the petitioner had been working in the school for the period from 15.07.2003 to 14.07.2005. Her retrenchment in the academic year 20032004 has been found to be bad by Exhibit P8 order. The DPI categorically found that one division was to be retained by applying the 1:40 ratio. The petitioner was therefore entitled to retention in the said post.

¶63

5.A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3^rd respondent contending that the petitioner was permitted to rejoin as per the order of the AEO dated 13.10.2005. It is therefore stated that the petitioner would be entitled to payment of salary only with effect from that date.

¶64

I have considered the contentions advanced as well as the pleadings and the materials on record. It is clear that the petitioner was entitled to retention in service on applying the 1:40 ratio to the staff fixation for the year 2003-2004. This benefit was illegally denied to her. Even after Exhibit P8 order was issued by the DPI directing the revision of the staff fixation order, it appears from the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd

¶65

W.P.(C).No.28959/10

¶66

¶67

respondent that the 3^rd respondent had unnecessarily delayed the compliance with the orders of the DPI and the petitioner was permitted to rejoin duty only on 13.10.2005. It is clear from Exhibits P9 and P13 produced along with the writ petition that the fact that the petitioner had continued in service was clearly spoken to by the Manager and the Headmaster of the school. In view of the clear findings contained in Exhibit P8, as also in the light of Exhibit P9 and P13 documents, there was no justification whatsoever for the 3^rd respondent to contend that the petitioner was not entitled to payment of salary for the period when she was illegally kept out of service by wrong orders of staff fixation issued by the 3^rd respondent.

¶68

The reasons relied upon to deny the claim raised by the petitioner in Exhibits P16 to P18 orders are devoid of merits. The contention contained in Exhibit P15 to the effect that there was no documentary evidence to show that the petitioner had continued in service after 14.07.2003 cannot be accepted since Exhibit P9 communication by the Manager was addressed to the DPI and has specifically contended that the petitioner was continuing service without salary. The orders impugned in this

¶69

W.P.(C).No.28959/10

¶70

¶71

writ petition are therefore vitiated by errors of facts and law apparent on the face of records. The said orders are therefore set aside. It is directed that the petitioner will be entitled to continue in service from 14.07.2003 onwards also and to all consequential benefits thereof. Consequential orders shall be passed by the 3^rd respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All monetary benefits shall be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within a further period of two months thereafter.

¶72

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶73

sd/-

¶74

Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶75

S.Suja v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Suja v. the State of Kerala and Others

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

Silpa Projects and Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Limited Vs Ms/ Samson and Sons Builders and Developers (P) Limited

Dr.Sunil Kumar.P. Vs St.Xaier'S College

Silpa Projects and Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Limited Vs M/S.Samson and Sons Builders and Developers (P) Limited

Ravi Manohar Vs Manarcad Grama Panchayath and Others

Mohammed Iqbal K.M. Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Gopinathan Nair Vs Union of India