Allowed

Teh Corporate Secretary, Corporate Educational Management v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Oct 2019WP(C)/6834/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a government order directing recovery of salary paid to an employee deemed wrongly appointed. Court held directed recovery cannot stand after a prior judgment set aside the employer's contention and upheld the employee's right to approval and benefits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; steps for recovery of amounts initiated by respondents shall be dropped.

Teh Corporate Secretary, Corporate… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 24TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.6834 OF 2012(D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THE CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL SECRETARY, CORPORATE EDUCATION AGENCY OF THE DIOCESE OF KOTHAMANGALAM KOTHAMANGALAM THODUPUZHA

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.P.T.GIRIJAN SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN SMT.USHA NARAYANAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THODUPUZHA 685 585

¶12

3 MR.SHIBUMON K.U HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT IN MALAYALAM ST.RITA'S HIGH SCHOOL PAINKULAM THODUPUZHA 685 585

¶13

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI. RON BASTIAN GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WPC No. 6834 of 2012

¶18

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext. P5 order issued by the Government to the extent it orders recovery of the amounts paid to the 3^rd respondent as salary from the petitioner, who is the Corporate Manager. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, Ext. P5 was issued by the Government on the mistaken assumption that, the post of High School Assistant in Malayalam, which arose in St. Mary's High School, Nakappuzha, which is one of the schools under the Corporate Educational Agency, ought to have been filled up by appointing a protected teacher.

¶21

It is stated that in the instant case that, there was no protected teacher available at the time of appointment of the 3^rd respondent was completely lost sight of. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the instance of the 3^rd respondent, the legal validity of Ext. P5 order has been considered by this Court in WPC No. 366/2012. After referring to the pleadings placed on record, this Court had found that, the respondents have no case that a list of the protected teachers has been made

¶22

WPC No. 6834 of 2012

¶23

¶24

available to the manager and that the contention that, the appointment made on 06.06.2006, as HSA Malayalam, was irregular could not be countenanced. Ext. P5 Order, which was Ext. P5 in the said writ petition also, was set aside on those grounds and it was held that the petitioner in that writ petition (3rd respondent herein) would be entitled to approval from 06.06.2006 and to all consequential benefits including re fixation pay, higher grade and benefits of pay revision.

¶25

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that, the direction for recovery of amounts from the corporate manager also can not survive, since Ext. P5 stands set aside and right of the 3^rd respondent for approval from 06.06.2006 stands upheld.

¶26

The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The steps for recovery of amounts, if any, initiated by the respondents, on the basis of Ext. P5 order, shall stand dropped.

¶27

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶28

(Sd/-) ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶29

¶30

WPC No. 6834 of 2012

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER.

¶36

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE LOCAL AUDIT REPORT.

¶37

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 14369/2011.

¶38

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.

¶39

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER.

¶40

- - True copy - - -

¶41

PA to Judge

Teh Corporate Secretary, Corporate Educational Management v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teh Corporate Secretary, Corporate Educational Management 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

K.v.Paul Vs State of Kerala

Society of the Sisters of Holy Cross, Vs the District Collector and Others

Rajalekshmi M. Vs State of Kerala

T.S.Abdul Latiff Vs State of Kerala

Bujair Ahammed.v Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Rejeena Vs Corporation of Thrissur