Remanded

Neethi O.T. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jan 2021WP(C)/26240/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Government to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the grant of full time benefit and pay revision for a Hindi teacher whose post was abolished. Salary was ordered continued under interim orders until a final decision is made.

What did the court decide?

Government to consider representation on full time benefit and pay revision within three months while salary continues.

Neethi O.T. Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.26240 OF 2020(D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NEETHI O.T. AGED 41 YEARS W/O. V.R.SUDHEERKUMAR, PART TIME HINDI TEACHER WITH FULL TIME BENEFIT, VANI VILASAM UP SCHOOL, CHOVVA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 006 RESIDING AT SARAYU, MACHERY, MOWANCHERY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 613.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PALLATH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, (ANNEX II), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION

¶12

JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014.

¶13

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

¶14

KANNUR, THANA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 002.

¶15

4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

¶16

KANNUR NORTH, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 101.

¶17

5 THE MANAGER

¶18

VANI VILASAMUP SCHOOL, CHOVVA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 006.

¶19

6 THE HEADMISTRESS

¶20

VANI VILASAM U.P. SCHOOL, CHOVVA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 006.

¶21

SR. GP-SMT.NISHA BOSE

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No.26240 OF 2020

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

¶27

“(i) a writ of certiorari calling for records leading to Ext.P3, Ext.P4, Ext.P6 and set aside Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 to the extent to which they say that the petitioner is not eligible for full time benefit during 2019-20 and set aside Ext.P6

¶28

(ii) Orders declaring that the petitioner is entitled for full time benefit for the year 2019-20 also.

¶29

(iii) Orders declaring that no recovery is permissible from the petitioner on refixation of pay while granting the full time benefit w.e.f. 01.06.2003 on revision cancelling the full time benefit already granted w.e.f. 21.11.2002.

¶30

(iv) Orders declaring the petitioner is eligible for reoption for 2004 pay revision, 2009 pay revision and higher grade also while refixing her pay with retrospective effect.

¶31

(v) Orders directing the 4^th and 6^th respondents to disburse salary due to the petitioner from July, 2019 onwards.”

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶33

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Part Time Hindi Teacher on 01.06.1998

¶34

WP(C).No.26240 OF 2020

¶35

¶36

and that she had been granted full time benefit with effect from 22.01.2002 on completion of 5 years of service. It is submitted that when one post of UPSA stood abolished in the year 2019-20, the disbursal of salary to the petitioner was sought to be discontinued. Ext.P5 order was passed on 19.08.2020 by the DPI directing that since the petitioner had been granted full time benefit from 22.01.2002, her status as a full time teacher should be continued on clubbing arrangement. It is submitted that thereafter, Ext.P6 order was passed by the 4^th respondent stating that the benefit can be granted only after the school reopen.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on approaching the Government and on the basis of interim orders passed, the petitioner had been getting her salary till December, 2020. It is submitted that even if it is found that the prior broken service is not liable to be counted, no recovery is liable to be effected against the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner is only a primary school teacher and had no role in the alleged mistake and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others v. . Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others [(2015) 4 SCC 334]

¶38

WP(C).No.26240 OF 2020

¶39

¶40

The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P5 direction

¶41

of the DPI will be implemented as soon as the school reopen. With regard to the refixation of the pay, it is submitted that the petitioner can approach the Government and the issue will be considered, taking note of the binding decisions of the Apex Court as well.

¶42

Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I am of the opinion that the question with regard to the grant of the full time benefit to the petitioner and the refixation of pay are liable to be considered by the Government, taking note of the principles case enunciated by the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (White Washer)'s (cited supra).

¶43

In the above view of the matter, in case the petitioner approaches the 1 st respondent with an appropriate representation, the same shall be considered, taking note of the directions of the Apex Court as well. The directions contained in Ext.P5 shall also be considered and appropriate action shall be taken in accordance with law. The steps for refixation of pay shall be kept in abeyance until the Government considers the representation to be preferred by the petitioner. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall be

¶44

WP(C).No.26240 OF 2020

¶45

¶46

continued to be paid salary as has been done pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 27.11.2020 till an appropriate decision is taken by the Government in this regard. Appropriate orders shall be passed by the Government after hearing the petitioner as well as the Manager through any appropriate means including by video conferencing within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

WP(C).No.26240 OF 2020

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX

¶55

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶56

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.1998 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.K.DIS./F/7219/02 DATED 22.1.2003 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.K.DIS.F/53090/2019 DATED 30.7.2019.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B2/60051/2019 DATED 2.10.2019.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COY OF LETTER NO.F/2162/2020 DATED 16.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.F/3723/19 DATED 4.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.62/73/S.EDN. DATED 02.5.1973.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF GO(MS)NO.189/82/G.EDN. DATED 14.12.1982.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.11/87/G.EDN. DATED 7.1.1987.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF G.O(P) NO.145/2006/FIN. DATED 25.3.2006 (PAY REVISION ORDER).

¶57

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

Neethi O.T. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neethi O.T. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

NO.905223 B Sergeant Pp Prince Hq Southern Air Command (Unit) Vs Union of India

Jyolsna G., Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Unnikrishnan Vs the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (Supplyco Ltd.)

C.C. Aboobacker Vs the State of Kerala

Aviation Industry Contractual Employees Association Vs Chairman and Managing Director

Zaheena, Vs the Assistant Chief Accounts Officer (Pen)