Remanded

C.A. Alophonsa v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Apr 2017WP(C)/7506/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, school assistants with broken service prior to regular appointment, challenged rejection of pay revision claims. Court observed authorities ignored relevant KER rules regarding broken service computation. Orders rejecting claims were set aside for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P6, P7, P8 setting side; Direction to 1st respondent to consider petitioners' representation under relevant KER rules within 3 months.

C.A. Alophonsa 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 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/14TH CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 7506 of 2008 (R)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. C.A.ALPHONSA, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, ST.GEMMA'S C.U.P. SCHOOL, MANAKODY, THRISSUR DISTRICT (C/O.MOTHER SUPERIOR, MARY IMMACULATE, F.C.CONVENT, THRISSUR)

¶8

2. K.RONY PETER, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.PETER, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, VANIVILASAM U.P.SCHOOL, PADOOR-680 524, (RESIDING AT KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, P.O.MULLASSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT)

¶9

3. T.D.LEENA, W/O.M.J.JACOB, AGED 33 YEARS, JUNIOR HINDI TEACHER, VANIVILASAM U.P.SCHOOL, PADOOR-680 524, (RESIDING AT MOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, FATHIMA NAGAR, P.O.CHEVOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT)

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MULLASERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MARY BEEN JOSEPH

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

mbr/

¶18

WP(C).No. 7506 of 2008 (R)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT. P1	: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED	G.O.(RT).NO.5348/05/G1.EDN. OF THE 15.11.2005.
EXT. P2	: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED	LETTER NO.65048/J2/2000/G.EDN. OF THE 17.1.2001.
EXT. P3	: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED	G.O.(RT).NO.3816/06/GE OF THE 28.8.2006.
EXT. P4	: TRUE COPY OF THE OPTION OF THE 1ST	STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY AND PETITIONER DATED 19.6.2006.
EXT. P5	: TRUE COPY OF THE HEADMISTRESS OF C GOVERNMENT DATED	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE .G.H.S. SCHOOL, THRISSUR TO THE 23.3.2007.
EXT. P4A	: TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 24.10.2007/	-DO- -DO- OF THE 2ND PETITIONER 25.10.2007.
EXT. P4B	: TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 3.3.2007.	-DO- -DO- OF THE 3RD PETITIONER
EXT. P6	: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED	ORDER NO.33304/PARC-3/07/FIN. OF THE 24.8.2007.
EXT. P7	: TRUE COPY OF THE ASST.EDL. OFFICER	ORDER NO.C-2676/07/L.DIS. OF THE DATED 29.10.2007.
EXT. P8	: TRUE COPY OF THE ASST. EDL. OFFICE	ORNDER NO.C-1110/07/L.DIS. OF THE R DATED 12.6.2007.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶27

W.P(C).No. 7506 of 2008

¶28

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 4^th April, 2017

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioners were appointed as aided school teachers prior to 2004. They had regular service with effect from 16.9.2004, 1.6.2005 and 12.6.2006 respectively. It is submitted that taking note of their prior broken spells of service in temporary vacancies, their probation was declared. The petitioners contend that they are entitled to count their earlier spells of broken service for fixation of pay. They also contend that since they were in service as on the date of effect of the 2006 pay revision order, they are entitled to the benefits of the said pay revision as well. The petitioners rely on the provisions contained in Rule 6(a) as well as Rule 61(4) Chapter XIV-A, KER and the provisions of Government order dated 28.8.2006. It is submitted that neither the pay revision order nor the provisions of KER provide that the petitioners should be in regular service as on the date of effect of the pay revision order to enable them to draw the benefits.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

WP(C).7506/08

¶34

It is submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader that the benefits of the pay revision order are extended to those persons who were in regular service as on the date of effect of the pay revision order.

¶35

I have considered the contentions advanced. It is specifically contended by the petitioners that the periods of broken service put in by them are to be reckoned for all benefits including grant of the benefits of the pay revision to them. The options submitted by the petitioners for fixation of pay in the revised scale of pay have been rejected by the Assistant Educational Officer stating that the petitioners had commenced regular service only after the date of effect of the pay revision order and therefore, they are not entitled to the benefits. Exhibits P6, P7 and P8 are the orders of rejection. The specific claim raised by the petitioners in terms of Rules 6(a) and 61(4) Chapter XIV-A, KER have not been adverted to by the respondents while passing orders. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the issue of applicability of the pay revision order to the petitioners in terms of the provisions of the KER has to be considered by the Government.

¶36

In the result, Exhibits P6, P7 and P8 are set aside. There will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to take up Exhibit P5

¶37

¶38

WP(C).7506/08

¶39

request submitted by the Headmaster of the school in which the petitioners were working and to pass orders thereon, after hearing the petitioners also, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶41

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶42

vgs7/4

C.A. Alophonsa v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.A. Alophonsa 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

Chenthamarakshan Vs the District Collector

Dr.Mohammed Anwar Vs Thendath Mohammed Haji and Others

Radhaklrishnan N. Vs the Managing Director, Kerala State Tour

A.K.Aboobacker Vs Cochin Refineries Employees Consumer Co-Operative Society LTD.NO.E-226

Kalliyoor Grama Panchayat Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Durolac Vs State of Kerala