Quashed

K.Geetha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2017WP(C)/82/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the first respondent to reassess the petitioner's claim for protection benefits regarding a pre-1996 teacher appointment. The court quashed the impugned order (Ext.P11) instructing the authority to decide de hors the rejected order, following directions from a prior judgment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order (Ext.P11) is quashed; the first respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim without being influenced by Ext.P11 within four months.

K.Geetha 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 MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/10TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 82 of 2011 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.GEETHA, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O B. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, M S M HIGH SCHOOL, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-695 014.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶13

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA-688 001.

¶14

5. THE MANAGER, M S M HIGH SCHOOL, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 502.

¶15

R1-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RAJI T. BASKER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 82 of 2011 (I)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 12.10.1993
P1(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 22.06.1994
P1(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 25.07.1995
P1(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 14.09.1998
P1(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 05.06.2000
P1(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.25713/H2/06/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 09.06.2006
P2	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.175/99/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 26.07.1999
P3	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.240/99/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 29.09.1999
P4	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.240/2000/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 24.07.2000
P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B2.7016/98/L.DIS. OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 05.10.1998
P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3.30137/98 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION DATED 28.05.1999
P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ET2/46666/99/DPI/D.DIS. OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.06.2001
P8	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.4765/2001/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 27.12.2001
P9	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT). NO.1386/06/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 31.03.2006
P10	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC.30246/2006 A DATED 20.08.2009
P11	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT). NO.1263/20/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 19.03.2010

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No. 82 of 2011 (I)

¶24

P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 10.04.2010

¶25

P13 RUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2009(4) K.L.T. 514 DATED 30.09.2009

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶32

=========================

¶33

W.P.(C) No.82 of 2011

¶34

========================== Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2017

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner is working as a UPSA in the school managed by the fifth respondent. She has been claiming benefits of protection but had been rejected on the ground that she was not in service on 14.07.1996, as is warranted by the terms of Exts.P2, P3 and P4 Government Orders.

¶37

The specific case of the petitioner is that she was appointed in a regular promotion vacancy with effect from 25.07.1995 and that she was approved on 28.03.1998. She, therefore, asserts that she was in service prior to 14.07.1996 and that she is entitled to the benefit of protection. However, her case has been rejected by the Government in Ext.P11 order and she has, therefore, impugned the same in this writ petition.

¶38

I have heard Sri.Rajasekharan Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶39

I notice that this Court had considered the issues raised in this writ petition in detail in an earlier round of litigation which culminated in Ext.P10 judgment. This Court had directed

¶40

W.P.(C) No.82 of 2011

¶41

¶42

the Government, after remitting it back for a fresh consideration, to consider whether the petitioner, being a teacher appointed prior to 14.07.1996, will be entitled to grant for protection. Ext.P11 order has been issued ostensibly in obedience to these directions. Unfortunately, from a reading of Ext.P11, I am not sure that the Authority, who issued it, have considered the true impact of Ext.P10 judgment. I say this because Ext.P11 rejects the petitioner's claim for protection merely recording that even though she was appointed with effect from 25.07.1995 in a regular promotion vacancy, her appointment was approved only with effect from 28.03.1998. It also recorded that her initial appointment was limited to 14.07.1996. I am not sure how these factors would enable the Authority to deny the claim of protection to the petitioner because in Ext.P10 what was directed to be seen is whether the petitioner was appointed prior to 14.07.1996. I say no more and I do not propose to consider any of these contentions on its merits. I am of the view that this will have to be reconsidered by the Authority who issued Ext.P11.

¶43

I, therefore, quash Ext.P11 not because I am concluding

¶44

W.P.(C) No.82 of 2011

¶45

¶46

that it is illegal or unlawful but to pay way for a proper reconsideration de hors what is stated therein. I consequently direct the first respondent to reconsider the petitioner's case without being influenced or trammeled by anything stated in Ext.P11 and to take an independent view based on the specific directions contained in Ext.P10 judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

The writ petition is ordered as above. In the nature of the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶48

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶49

stu

K.Geetha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Geetha 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

Ajmal Safeer Vs State of Kerala

S.Christopher Vs University of Kerala

P a Ali Vs Union of India

Moozhikkal Aboobacker Vs the District Registrar (General)

K.J. Mathukutty Vs Government of Kerala

Thomas Kuruvila Vs Village Officer,Kakkanadu