Disposed

Rosh v. Kuriakose, v the Principal Secretary to Government

Kerala HC8 Oct 2021WP(C)/20518/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order cancelling a salary promotion order and sought quashing of the same. The court directed the Principal Secretary to consider and dispose of the petitioner's appeal regarding salary and pension benefits within three months after affording an opportunity of being heard.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st Respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeal within three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard.

Rosh v. Kuriakose, Vs the Principal Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 20518 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 16TH ASWINA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 20518 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

ROSH V. KURIAKOSE, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. LATE V.K. KURIAKOSE, PRINCIPAL (RETD.), MGHSS, THUMPAMON, PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDING AT VAZHACHIRA HOUSE, KUZHIMATTOM P.O,

¶10

KOTTAYAM-686533.

¶11

BY ADVS. K.M.GEORGE CHITHRA P.GEORGE JOSE K.JOSEPH

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT (ANNEX) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION (HIGHER SECONDARY SECTION), HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHINAGAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

3 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THAMPAYATHIL BUILDING, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA-689121.

¶16

SMT NISHA BOSE SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 20518 OF 2021

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner states that he was working as HSST (Selection Grade) in the MGM HSS, Thiruvalla and while so, he was promoted as Principal on 02.05.2014. He contends that his grades in the post of HSST (Higher Grade) and HSST (Selection Grade) and his pay in the promoted post of Principal w.e.f 02.05.2014 were revised and sanctioned as per Ext.P1 order. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent unilaterally cancelled Ext.P1 order and passed Ext.P5 order stating that the 9th Pay Revision of 2011 is applicable to the petitioner, and as the scales of pay of the HSST (Selection Grade) and Principal are the same, Rule 28A of Part I of the KSR is not applicable to him. A further direction was issued to submit revised pay fixation in terms of the 9th pay revision.

¶22

Being aggrieved, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P10 appeal and when the same was not considered in an expeditious manner Ext.P10(a) reminder was also submitted. It is contended that no action has been taken to date. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the

¶23

petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶24

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction to call for the entire records which culminated in the issuance of Exhibit-P5 and to quash the same;

¶25

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or

¶26

WP(C) NO. 20518 OF 2021

¶27

¶28

direction, compelling the respondents to sanction and disburse the arrears of salary as per Exhibit-P1;

¶29

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, compelling the respondents to sanction and disburse pension and other attendant benefits to the Petitioner w.e.f. the date of his retirement on 31/03/2020 as per Exhibit-P1 order;

¶30

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, compelling the respondents to recompense the Petitioner for the loss suffered by way of interest at 12% per annum, amounting to not less than Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only).

¶31

(v) To direct the 1st Respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit-P10 & Exhibit-P10(a) in accordance with law, within the time period fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶32

(vi) Award the cost of this Writ Petition from the 2nd respondent and her assets”.

¶33

Sri.K.M.George, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the partial cancellation of Ext.P1 by Ext.P5 order cannot be sustained. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P5 divests the petitioner’s vested right to the entitlement of the benefit of Rule 28A with retrospective effect. The learned counsel submits that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has sought for quashing Ext.P5, for the time being, the petitioner would be satisfied if directions are issued to the 1st respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P10 within a time frame.

¶34

I have heard Smt.Nisha Bose, learned Senior Government

¶35

Pleader.

¶36

WP(C) NO. 20518 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

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:

¶39

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P10 and Ext.P10(a), after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorised representative.

¶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

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

¶47

WP(C) NO. 20518 OF 2021

¶48

¶49

¶50

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶51

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.114/C5/RDD/CNGR/2020 DATED 09/10/2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.85/2011/FIN. DATED 26/02/2011.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.390/2015/ (210)/FIN. DATED 07/09/2015.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PERIODICAL INCREMENT CERTIFICATE IN WHICH DATE OF INCREMENT GIVEN AS SHOWN AS 01/10/2015, VIDE ORDER NO.6342/C5/RDD/CNGR/20 DATED 08/01/2021.
Exhibit P4(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE PERIODICAL INCREMENT CERTIFICATE IN WHICH DATE OF INCREMENT GIVEN IS SHOWN AS 01/10/2016, VIDE ORDER NO.6342/C5/RDD/CNGR/20 DATED 08/01/2021.
Exhibit P4(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE PERIODICAL INCREMENT CERTIFICATE IN WHICH DATE OF INCREMENT GIVEN IS SHOWN AS 01/10/2017, VIDE ORDER NO.6342/C5/RDD/CNGR/20 DATED 08/01/2021.
Exhibit P4(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE PERIODICAL INCREMENT CERTIFICATE IN WHICH DATE OF INCREMENT GIVEN IS SHOWN AS 01/10/2018, VIDE ORDER NO.6342/C5/RDD/CNGR/20 DATED 08/01/2021.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 434/C8/RDD/CNGR/2021 DATED 12/02/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05/03/2021 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/03/2021 OF THE PETITIONER, ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.7/2016/FIN DATED 20/01/2016.

¶52

WP(C) NO. 20518 OF 2021

¶53

¶54

Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1371251/INFOR.1/328/2019/FIN. DATED 30/11/2019 FROM THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT ISSUED UNDER RTI ACT.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1495299/INF.2/92/2020/FIN. DATED 29/05/2020 FROM THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, ISSUED UNDER RTI ACT.
Exhibit P9(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.168/2013 (147)/FIN. DATED 11/04/2014.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06/05/2021.
Exhibit P10(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12/07/2021.
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO. 4097/2021/G.EDN. DATED 16/09/2021.

¶55

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶56

¶57

//True copy//

¶58

PA to Judge

Rosh v. Kuriakose, v the Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rosh v. Kuriakose, v the Principal Secretary to Government

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.a.Anitha Vs Sakunthala

Mathew Paul, Vs Fr. Jacob Kurian

Ansar Kodasseri Vs State of Kerala

Shimitha. C Vs Sugatha

Seena L.K., Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Raveendran Vs Assistant Educational Officer