Partly allowed

State of Kerala v. Vanditha.P

Kerala HC1 Jun 2022WA/211/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two-judge bench allowed a writ appeal dismissing the State's challenge to a single judge order directing the Government to grant full-time status benefits to retired Craft Teachers. The court held the teachers were identically placed as others who received benefits and found no valid case for delay or laches in their claim.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal dismissed with no merits. Order dated 16.07.2021 in the writ petition upheld, directing the Government to grant benefits to the petitioners.

State of Kerala Vs Vanditha.P — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶7

WA NO. 211 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21206/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF

¶9

KERALA

¶10

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.

¶13

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DDE, KANNUR, PIN – 670001.

¶14

4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DDE, KOZHIKODE – 673001.

¶15

5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE AEO, THALASSERY SOUTH, THALASSERY PIN – 670101.

¶16

6 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE AEO, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE-673017.

¶17

7 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE AEO, THALIPARAMBA SOUTH, THALIPARAMBA – 670141.

¶18

8 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE AEO, THALIPARAMBA NORTH, THALIPARAMBA – 670141.

¶19

Writ Appeal No.211 of 2022 -: 2 :-

¶20

9 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE AEO, KANNUR NORTH, KANNUR- 670001.

¶21

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE

¶22

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN WPC:

¶23

1 VANDITHA.P, W/O.T.K.PRABHATH, CRAFT TEACHER, VANEE VILSAM UP SCHOOL, TEMPLE GATE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT – 670331 (RESIDING AT ANANDAM,P.O.PALAYAD, EAST PALAYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT-670661.)

¶24

2 SASEENDRAN.C.V., KUNDANARY PARABIL HOUSE, P.O. CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE – 673017 (RETIRED CRAFT TEACHER, CHEVAYUR UP SCHOOL, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKKODE-673017)

¶25

3 GOURI.P.V., W/O. M.SURENDRAN, MUTHANGA HOUSE, KOOVERI P.O., CHAPPARAPADAVU, KANNUR- 670581 (RETIRED CRAFT TEACHER, MUYYAM UP SCHOOL, THALIPARAMBA 670142).

¶26

4 SULOCHANA.K.V., W/O.BALAKRISHNAN, KONJAMMORVEETTIL, P.O.PAYYAVOOR – 670633 (RETIRED NEEDLE WORK TEACHER, POOMANGALAM UP SCHOOL, PANNIYOOR, KANNUR - 670142).

¶27

5 SEETHALAKSHMI.N., W/O MUKUNDAN, NHANDANMADATH HOUSE, P.O., KOTTALI, KANNUR – 670016 (RETIRED CRAFT TEACHER, PERUMACHERY AUP SCHOOL).

¶28

6 LATHA.A.K., D/O K.NARAYANAN, KOLLANKANDY HOUSE, CHIRAKKARA, THALASSERY-670104(RETIRED CRAFT TEACHER, THIRUVANGAD CHALIA UP SCHOOL).

¶29

Writ Appeal No.211 of 2022 -: 3 :-

¶30

7 INDUMATHI .P.M., W/O PURUSHOTHAMAN.K.K., THARACHAND HOUSE, P.O.KIZHUNNA, KANNUR-670007 (RETIRED CRAFT TEACHER, DHARMADAM BASIC UP SCHOOL, DHARMADAM, THALASSERY - 670106)

¶31

BY ADVS. T.T.MUHAMOOD A.RENJITH V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR A.MOHAMMED SAVAD

¶32

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

Writ Appeal No.211 of 2022 -: 4 :-

¶34

P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.

¶35

Writ Appeal No.211 of 2022

¶36

Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2022

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

¶39

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.07.2021 in W.P.(C) No.21206 of 2020. The appellants were the respondents in the writ petition. Parties are referred to in this judgment as they appear in the writ petition.

¶40

Among the petitioners, the fourth petitioner is a Needle Work Teacher in an aided school and the remaining petitioners were Craft Teachers in various other aided schools. Even though the appointments of some among the petitioners were as Full Time teachers, the appointments of all the petitioners were approved by the concerned competent authorities only as Part-Time Specialist Teachers. In terms of Ext.P6 order, the Government have granted Full-Time status to the petitioners and 95 others who have completed 15 years of

¶41

Writ Appeal No.211 of 2022 -: 5 :-

¶42

Part-Time service with effect from 31.12.2009. Earlier, on 06.04.2000, in terms of Ext.P7 order, Government have regularized the appointments of 54 Physical Education Teachers whose appointments were not approved by the concerned competent authorities for want of sanctioned post and other similar reasons. It appears that on the basis of Ext.P7 order, some among the 102 Part-Time Specialist Teachers who have been granted Full-Time status with effect from 31.12.2009 approached the Government for Full-Time status with effect from the date of their appointments. In terms of Ext.P12 order, Government have considered their claim, and in the light of Ext.P7 and similar orders, granted Full-Time status to them with effect from the date of their appointments. It was, however, directed in Ext.P12 order that monetary benefits will be disbursed to them only from January, 2005. Earlier, a similarly placed teacher who is included in Ext.P6 order approached the Government for identical relief and the said request was rejected by the Government in terms of an order passed on 17.11.2017. The said order was under

¶43

Writ Appeal No.211 of 2022 -: 6 :-

¶44

challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No.23163 of 2018. It is seen that in the light of Ext.P12 order, this Court allowed the said writ petition, quashed the order impugned therein and directed the respondents to grant the benefit granted to those covered by Ext.P12 order. As the petitioner therein had retired from service by then, it was directed that his pensionary benefits shall be recomputed and disbursed in the light of the decision in the writ petition.

¶45

The petitioners are persons identically placed like the teachers who are covered by Ext.P12 order as also the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23163 of 2018. They have approached the Government for relief identical to Ext.P12. The said request was however turned down by the Government in terms of Ext.P15 order. The writ petition was one instituted challenging Ext.P15 order. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners in the writ petition and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23163 of 2018 are identically placed, this Court disposed of the writ petition holding that the petitioners are also entitled to the benefits granted to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23163 of

¶46

Writ Appeal No.211 of 2022 -: 7 :-

¶47

2018, and directed the respondents to extend the same to the petitioners. The respondents are aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge and hence, this appeal.

¶48

Heard the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition.

¶49

The fact that the petitioners in the writ petition

¶50

and the teachers covered by Ext.P12 order as also the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23163 of 2018 are identically placed and that all of them are teachers included in Ext.P6 order is not in dispute. The contention raised, however, is that there is delay on the part of the petitioners in raising the claim. According to the learned Government Pleader, the basis of the claim of the petitioners being Ext.P7 order issued by the Government as early as on 6.4.2000, and the representation on the basis of which Ext.P15 order was passed by the Government being one preferred after Ext.P13 judgment, the learned Single Judge ought not have entertained the writ petition and should have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. The learned Government Pleader

¶51

Writ Appeal No.211 of 2022 -: 8 :-

¶52

has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, in support of the said contention.

¶53

As noted, there is no dispute to the facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs. Even though the teachers covered by Ext.P12 order do not have any right as such to claim full time status with effect from the date of their appointment, it cannot be said that the relief extended to them by the Government in terms of Ext.P12 order is one which cannot be extended by the Government. As such, insofar as the petitioners herein, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23163 of 2018 as also the teachers covered by Ext.P12 order are similarly placed, they are entitled to be treated alike. In that view of the matter, the petitioners are entitled to the benefits granted to the teachers covered by Ext.P12 order as also to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23163 of 2018 in terms of Ext.P13 judgment. Of course, this court can decline the relief claimed by the petitioners on the ground of delay and laches. The only question, therefore, is as to whether the claim of the

¶54

Writ Appeal No.211 of 2022 -: 9 :-

¶55

petitioners could be turned down on the ground of delay and laches.

¶56

True, the very basis of the claim made by some among the teachers included in Ext.P6 order to obtain an order in the nature of Ext.P12 is Ext.P7 order. But the fact that Ext.P12 is an order passed by the Government only on 28.02.2019 is not in dispute. As noted, a similar claim raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23163 of 2018 was in fact rejected by the Government earlier and the said writ petition was one filed challenging the said order. It is during the pendency of the said writ petition that Ext.P12 order has been passed by the Government. It is in the light of Ext.P12 order dated 28.02.2019 that this Court allowed W.P.(C) No.23163 of 2018 and directed the respondents to extend the same benefits to the petitioner therein also in terms of Ext.P13 judgment. Ext.P13 judgment was rendered by this Court on 27.06.2019. Ext.P15 order issued by the Government rejecting the representation preferred by the petitioners indicates that the petitioners have preferred the representation before the

¶57

Writ Appeal No.211 of 2022 -: 10 :-

¶58

Government claiming identical benefits on 16.07.2019 and the representation was considered by the Government in the light of Ext.P14 judgment of this Court. A perusal of Ext.P14 judgment indicates that this Court had issued a positive direction to the Government to consider the representation preferred by the petitioners in the light of a few judgments including Ext.P13 judgment, which was rendered on 27.06.2019. Ext.P14 is the judgment rendered on 17.12.2019. Ext.P15 order was passed on 03.08.2020 and the writ petition was filed immediately thereafter on 07.10.2020. In the circumstances, we do not find that the respondents have made out a case of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners, for this Court to refrain from extending to the petitioners the benefits extended to identically placed persons.

¶59

The writ appeal is therefore, devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶60

Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶61

Sd/C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.

¶62

ds 01.06.2022

¶63

Writ Appeal No.211 of 2022 -: 11 :-

¶64

APPENDIX

¶65

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶66

Annexure1 ANNEXURE A1 Annexure2 ANNEXURE A2 Annexure3 ANNEXURE A3 Annexure4 ANNEXURE A4

State of Kerala v. Vanditha.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Vanditha.P

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

State of Kerala Vs Mathew Korah

V.N.Mohankumar Vs S.N.D.P.Yogam

S.N.D.P.Yogam, Vs G.Krishnamoorthy

State of Kerala Vs P.v.Varghese

P.v.Varghese Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by Secretary

Dileepkumar K. L. Vs the Joint Registrar (General) Co-Operative Societies