Disposed

Fousiya K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Dec 2022WP(C)/11656/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed by two school employees seeking approval of their appointments from their original dates of service as construed, but finding that the case should be decided by issuing directions to the government department to review a revision petition with hearing before a final order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4 revision petition with hearing and pass orders within four months.

Fousiya K Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 2NDDAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA,1944

¶4

WP(C) NO. 11656 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

1FOUSIYA K
AGED 37 YEARS
UPST, AUP SCHOOL, THOTTEKKAD,
PULPATTA, MALAPPURAM-673642.

¶7

2SUJIL G.,
LPST, AUP SCHOOL, THOTTEKKAD,
PULPATTA, MALAPPURAM-673642.
BY ADVS.
AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
TONY AUGUSTINE

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER,
KIZHISSERI, MALAPPURAM-673642.
3MANAGER,
AUP SCHOOL, THOTTEKKAD,
PULPATTA, MALAPPURAM-673642.

¶10

SMT NISHA BOSE SR GP

¶11

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON02.12.2022,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 11656 OF 2022

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The petitioners contend that they are working at the AUP School, Thottekkad. They have approached this Court seeking issuance of directions to the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the 1st petitioner from 01.06.2010 and the 2nd petitioner from 10.01.2011 and to grant all consequential benefits.

¶16

According to the petitioners, initially, their approval was not granted on the ground that the petitioners were appointed during the ban period. Later, approval was granted w.e.f. 01.06.2011. The petitioners assert that in so far as the appointment of the seniors of the petitioners in service is concerned, approval has been granted from the initial date itself. Stating all these aspects, they are stated to have preferred Exhibit P4 revision petition.

¶17

When this matter was taken up for consideration, Sri. Augustine Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that seeking the above reliefs, the petitioners have preferred Ext.P4 revision petition before the 1st respondent and direction be issued to the 1st respondent to consider the same and take a decision within a time frame with due notice.

¶18

WP(C) NO. 11656 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

I have heard Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government

¶21

Pleader.

¶22

In view of the nature of the order that I propose to pass, no prejudice would be caused to the 3rd respondent if notice is dispensed with.

¶23

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

¶24

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 at the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:

¶25

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or

¶26

virtually, to the petitioners herein or their authorized representative and the 3rd respondent.

¶27

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

¶28

WP(C) NO. 11656 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

avs

¶36

WP(C) NO. 11656 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11656/2022

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶40

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2010 OF` `THE 1ST PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 10.1.2011` `OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 15.12.2021.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 2.3.2022`
	`PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`

Fousiya K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fousiya K 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

Super Industries Vs the State of Kerala

The Manager, A.U.P. School, Vadakkepotta Alathur, Vs State of Kerala

The Manager Aup School Pallikkal(Pallam), Vs State of Kerala

Anitha R.K. Vs State of Kerala

Azif Azad Vs Union of India

Nizar a. Vs State of Kerala