Partly allowed

Abdulssalam P.N. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Oct 2022WP(C)/1100/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, Headmasters, sought quashing of Government Orders (Ext.P7, P8) that attempted to retrospectively withdraw time-bound Higher Grade benefits granted by this Court in W.P.(C) No.35707/2017. Relying on a later Government Order (Ext.P10), the Court held that benefits already disbursed under judicial direction need not be reopened, quashing Ext.P8 and affirming the petitioners' entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P8 order stood quashed; Interdict issued against respondents from taking away benefits extended to petitioners consequent to the judgment in W.P.(C) No.35707/2017.

Abdulssalam P.N. Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(C)No.1100 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 26TH ASWINA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 1100 OF 2019

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 ABDULSSALAM P.N.

¶9

AGED 51 YEARS S/O.KOYAKUTTY.P.N,HEADMASTER,A.M.M.L.P.SCHOOL, PULIKKAL,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2 GEORGE.M.U AGED 54 YEARS S/O.ULAHANNAN,HEADMASTER,A.M.U.P.SCHOOL, KUMMINIPARAMBA,KUMMINIPARAMBA(P.O), KONDOTTY(VIA),MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV K.T.SHYAMKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶14

2 ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, KONDOTTY,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676605.

¶15

3 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695014.

¶16

4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM,PIN-676605.

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SMT SAROJINI GP

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C)No.1100 of 2019

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶24

“(i) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P7 and quash the same to the extend it gives retrospective effect to the amendment brought in to Rule 1 of Chapter XXVI of Kerala Educational Rules with effect from 08.09.1988 by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶25

(ii) Declare that the retrospective effect given to the amendment to Rule 1 of Chapter XXVI introduced by Exhibit P7 order takes away the vested rights of the Petitioners which had crystalized consequent to Exhibits P1 and P2 Pay Revision Orders and hence the same is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

¶26

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus interdicting the Respondents from taking away the benefits accrued to the Petitioners consequent to Exhibits P1 and P2 Government orders.

¶27

(iv) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P8 issued by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.”[SIC]

¶28

2. When this writ petition was taken up for consideration,

¶29

Sri.K.T.Shyam Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that in view of Ext.P10 Government order dated 19.12.2019 and the law laid down by this Court in W.P.(C) No.25635/2020, the petitioners are

¶30

W.P.(C)No.1100 of 2019

¶31

¶32

not pressing reliefs 1 and 2 sought for in this writ petition. The said submission is recorded.

¶33

The brief facts which are required to be stated for deciding this

¶34

issue are as under:

¶35

The 1st petitioner states that he was appointed as LPSA on 19.12.1984 and was promoted as the Headmaster of School on 01.05.1998. On completion of 15 years of service, he was granted the Head Master scale on 19.12.1999. On completion of 8 years of service as HM, he was granted HM Higher Grade. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to receive HM Higher grade on completion of 8 years of service as HM on 01.05.2006.

¶36

The 2nd petitioner was appointed as UPSA on 22.07.1996. He contends that he was promoted as Headmaster on 15.06.1992 and was granted the HM scale on completion of 15 years of service on 22.07.2001. He states that he was granted HM Higher Grade on completion of 8 years of service as HM on 22.07.2009. According to

¶37

the 2nd petitioner, he is entitled to receive HM first idea grade on completion of 10 years of service as HM on 15.06.2002, and to HM second higher grade on completion of 20 years of service as HM on 15.06.2012

¶38

W.P.(C)No.1100 of 2019

¶39

¶40

According to the petitioner, it was on the strength of Ext.P1 and P2 orders that the Government had ordered that Primary School Headmaster will be allowed First Time Bound Higher Grade promotion on completion of 8 years of service as Headmaster or 28 years of total service as Headmaster and Teacher together.

¶41

According to the petitioners, the anomaly in the grant of Headmaster’s Higher Grade viz-a-viz, Headmaster’s Scale of Pay was subject matter of several writ petitions and by judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.11484/2006, court proceeded to hold as follows:

¶42

“8........ ....... The entitlement for grant of particular scale W.P.(C)No.34575/2010 -3- of pay on completion of specified number of years cannot put them in a disadvantage in getting the benefits like higher grade that is allowable as per the relevant provisions of G.O.(P) No.3000/98/ Fin. dated 25.11.1998. If the contention of the respondents is accepted, then that will amount to a modification of the terms of the said Government Order wherein the scheme for grant of higher grade has been laid down. It is not the requirement in the said scheme that for the grant of time bound higher grade promotion in respect of Headmasters who have been benefited by the Headmaster's scale in terms of Rule 1 of Chapter XXVI of K.E.R they should complete another 10 years in Headmaster's scale. In the absence of anything of that sort

¶43

W.P.(C)No.1100 of 2019

¶44

¶45

in the scheme, the contention raised by the respondents cannot be accepted.” this , this Court held that the entitlement for grant of a particular scale of pay on completion of a specified number of years cannot put the Headmasters at a disadvantage in getting the benefits like Higher Grade to which they are entitled to. It was further held that it was not the requirement under the Scheme that for the grant of timebound Higher Grade in respect of Headmasters who have been benefitted by the Headmasters Scheme in terms of Rule 1 of Chapter XXVI of the KER.

¶46

The very same question came up for consideration before this

¶47

Court in W.P.(C) No.34575/2010 and a learned Single Judge following the judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No.11484/2006 ordered the writ petition. The petitioner states that the Writ Appeals preferred challenging Ext.P3 judgment was dismissed by a Division Bench, by Ext.P4 judgment and an SLP preferred against the judgments was dismissed as is evident from Ext.P5.

¶48

Claiming parity with those Headmasters who had approached this court, the petitioners herein along with certain others approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No.35707/2017 and by Ext.P6 judgment, this Court held that the Headmasters of LP/UP Schools will also be entitled to Time-bound Higher Grade on completion of 8/10/20 years of service in the post of Headmaster in

¶49

W.P.(C)No.1100 of 2019

¶50

¶51

accordance with the Government Orders. Consequently, directions were issued to the petitioners to file appropriate representations and the competent among respondents therein were directed to consider the same and pass orders granting the benefits to them. In tune with the directions so issued, the 2nd respondent has issued orders to implement the judgment granting sanction for HM Higher Grade on completion of 8 years of service as Headmasters. The petitioners were allowed to draw the revised pay and allowances as well.

¶52

Much after the pronouncement of judgment, on 17.10.2018, the Government came out with Ext.P7 notification, bringing an amendment to Chapter XXVI Rule 1 of the KER. Later, Ext.P8 order was issued on 26.10.2018 ordering that the grant of Higher Grade to the petitioners, is an erroneous exercise. It was further directed that the petitioners would be entitled to salary and emoluments only in the scale that was fixed prior to the revision.

¶53

The petitioners contend that after the filing of this writ petition, the Government has come out with Ext.P10 order dated 19.12.2019 clarifying that in the matter of grant of Higher Grade, those cases in which the benefit has been granted in compliance of the directions issued by this Court need not be reopened.

¶54

W.P.(C)No.1100 of 2019

¶55

¶56

According to the petitioners, in view of Ext.P10, Exts.P7 and P8 orders which have been issued to deprive the benefits granted to the petitioners by Ext.P6 judgment cannot be sustained under law.

¶57

I have heard Sri.K.T.Shyamkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader.

¶58

It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that Ext.P10

¶59

order has been issued by the Government granting benefits to persons like the petitioners herein.

¶60

Having considered the submissions and on going through the records, I find that the benefits of Ext.P3 and P4 were extended to the petitioners in pursuance to Ext.P6 judgment rendered by this Court on 21.12.2017. Ext.P7 and P8 were issued much later. Furthermore, the Government has issued Ext.P10 order on 19.12.2019 clarifying that in the matter of grant of Higher Grade those cases in which the benefits have already been granted consequent to the directions issued by this Court need not be reopened. Admittedly, the benefits due to the petitioners have been disbursed consequent to Ext.P6 judgment. In that view of the matter, the petitioners herein are entitled to succeed.

¶61

Resultantly, Ext.P8 order will stand quashed. It is held that the

¶62

W.P.(C)No.1100 of 2019

¶63

¶64

petitioners would be entitled to the benefits of Ext.P10 order issued by the Government. The respondents are interdicted from taking away the benefits extended to the petitioners consequent to Ext.P6 judgment. They shall be entitled to the benefits in terms of Ext.P6 judgment.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶67

JUDGE

¶68

¶69

W.P.(C)No.1100 of 2019

¶70

¶71

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1100/2019

¶72

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶73

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.242/2009/129/FIN DATED 26-6-2009
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.145/2006 DATED 25.03.2006
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.34575/2010 DATED 5-7-2011
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.7.2016 IN W.A.NO.1519/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THGE ORDER DATED 30.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2017 IN W.P(C)NO.35707/2017
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.20/2018/GEDN DATED 17-10-2018
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 9.11.2018 IN W.P.(c)NO.36496/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.3.2021 IN WPC.25635 OF 2020.

Abdulssalam P.N. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdulssalam P.N. 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

Fr.Francis J Vs State of Kerala

T.P.Mayamani Vs the State of Kerala

Jubit Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Princy A.J Vs the State of Kerala

Reshma S. Vs the Regional Deputy Director

R.Kaldharan Vs State of Kerala