Disposed

Muhammed Rafi C.M v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Sept 2021WP(C)/14787/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns the regularization of an educator's suspension period after his criminal acquittal and the entitlement to back pay and seniority. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's appeal as a revision petition under Rule 92 Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules within three months. The court formally dismissed specific

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to treat Appendix P9 as revision petition under Rule 92 Chapter XIVA of KER, afford hearing, and pass orders within three months.

Muhammed Rafi C.M Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 14787 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 24TH BHADRA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 14787 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

MUHAMMAD RAFI C.M, AGED 35 YEARS, SON OF ABDURAHIMAN, LG ARABIC TEACHER, ALP SCHOOL, PULLALUR, NARIKKUNNI (VIA), KOZHIKODE-673 585, RESIDING AT CHERACHORA MEETHAL HOUSE, PARANNOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 585.

¶10

BY ADVS. REKHA VASUDEVAN ELIZABETH V.JOSEPH MAHESH C.R.

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.

¶14

3 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, AEO OFFICE, KODUVALLY BUS STAND LANE, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE 673 585.

¶15

4 THE MANAGER, A.L.P.SCHOOL, PULLALUR, KOZHIKODE 673 585.

¶16

WP(C) NO. 14787 OF 2021 2

¶17

BY ADV R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

¶18

SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GP

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 14787 OF 2021

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner states that he was placed under suspension invoking Rule 67A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules in view of his involvement

¶24

in a Criminal Case. He contends that he was honourably acquitted by the Court of Session as per Ext. P4 judgment. According to the petitioner, in view of the acquittal, the suspension period ought to have been regularised. He then submitted Ext.P7 representation before the 4th respondent but the same was rejected by Ext.P8 order. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P9 styled as an appeal. According to the petitioner, though it is styled as an appeal, it can only be treated as a revision petition under Rule 92 Chapter XIVA of the KER. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this court seeking the following reliefs:-

¶25

“i) Quash Exhibit-P8 order issued by the 4th respondent by the issuance of the writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶26

ii) Declare that the petitioner is fully entitled for regularisation of his suspension period from 08.07.2019 to 31.12.2020 as duty for all purposes.

¶27

iii) Direct the respondents to regularise petitioner’s suspension period from 08.07.2019 to 31.12.2020 as duty for all purposes, by the issuance of the writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶28

iv) Direct the respondents to draw and disburse the arrears of pay and allowances and consequential benefits including seniority thereof on regularization of his suspension period from 08.07.2019 to 31.12.2020, within a time frame, by issuance of writ of mandamus, or other

¶29

WP(C) NO. 14787 OF 2021

¶30

¶31

appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶32

v) Alternatively, direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit-P9 appeal submitted by the petitioner within a time frame, by the issuance of writ of mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction.”

¶33

Smt. Rekha Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the limited request of the petitioner is for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 treating the same as a revision petition.

¶34

I have heard the learned Government Pleader. In view of the limited nature of the relief sought for, notice to the 4th respondent is dispensed with.

¶35

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions:

¶36

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 treating the same as a revision petition filed under Rule 92 Chapter XIVA

¶37

of the KER, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorised representative as well as the 4th respondent.

¶38

WP(C) NO. 14787 OF 2021

¶39

¶40

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

¶42

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶43

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

DSV

¶46

WP(C) NO. 14787 OF 2021 6

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14787/2021

¶48

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶49

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE 15.7.2019 ISSUED	ORDER NO.1/2019 DATED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P1(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE 22.8.2019 ADDRES 4TH RESPONDENT.	LETTER NO.D/1942/19 DATED SED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE 17.9.2019 ISSUED	MEMO OF CHARGES DATED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.	LETTER DATED 30.9.2019 PETITIONER OF THE 4TH
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE SC 1069/2019 OF SESSIONS JUDGE F RELATING TO ATRO TOWARDS WOMEN AN	ORDER DATED 15.12.2020 IN ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND OR THE TRIAL OF CASES CITIES AND VIOLENCE D CHILDREN, KOZHIKODE.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE 22.12.2020 SUBMI THE 4TH RESPONDE	REPRESENTATION DATED TTED BY THE PETITIONER TO NT.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE 1.1.2021 ISSUED	ORDER 1/2021 DATED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE 17.3.2021 SUBMIT THE 3RD RESPONDE	REPRESENTATION DATED TED BY THE PETITIONER TO NT.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE 12.5.2021 ISSUED	ORDER 2/2021 DATED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.	APPEAL DATED 1.6.2021 PETITIONER TO THE 1ST

¶50

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL

Muhammed Rafi C.M v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Rafi C.M 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

Bengara Jyothi P.R. Vs the State of Kerala

Binu Samuel Vs State of Kerala

Sona C M Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Blessy Paul Vs a.P.M.Mohammed Hanish IAS

P.M.Gangadharan Vs the State of Kerala