Disposed

Sindhu P.P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2022WP(C)/2478/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by a government teacher seeking a direction to consider her pending representation regarding the reckoning of broken service. The High Court directed the respondent authority to consider the petition and issue orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within two months.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 12THDAY OF JULY 2022 / 21ST ASHADHA,1944

¶4

WP(C) NO. 2478 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

SINDHU P.P.
LPST, ALP SCHOOL, VILATHUR,
PALAKKAD - 679 304.
BY ADVS.
AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
TONY AUGUSTINE

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶9

2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION CIVIL STATION, KENATHU PARAMBU, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶10

3 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD - 679 303.

¶11

4 THE MANAGER ALP SCHOOL, VILATHUR, PALAKKAD - 679 304. SRI.SAJI KURIACHAN SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR GP

¶12

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON12.07.2022,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

W.P.(C) No.2478 of 2022

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner contends that she is working as an LPST in the ALP School, Vilathur. According to the petitioner, she was appointed on 2.1.2007 in a leave without allowance vacancy, and the same was approved as per Ext.P1 order. She contends that on 2.1.2012, she was appointed in a permanent vacancy which was approved, and she is continuing in service by drawing salary. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P6 order, the Government has ordered to reckon the broken service rendered by the petitioner herein. However, pursuant to the clarifications sought by the AEO, Ext.P7 order was issued by the Government on 5.1.2022. The learned counsel contends that Ext.P7 cannot be sustained in the light of the law laid down in Ext.P8. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P9 representation before the 1st respondent, which is stated to be pending. The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 and to take a decision.

¶17

The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that though there is no impediment in considering Ext.P9, Ext.P8 judgment has no application in the facts and circumstances.

¶18

¶19

W.P.(C) No.2478 of 2022

¶20

Be that as it may, if Ext.P9 is pending before the 1st respondent,

¶21

directions can be issued to the 1st respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶22

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to

¶23

take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorised representative and the 4th respondent.

¶24

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed

¶25

expeditiously, in any event, within two months from the

¶26

date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶27

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce

¶28

a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

¶29

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶30

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶31

Sru

¶32

¶33

W.P.(C) No.2478 of 2022

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2478/2022

¶35

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶36

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `02/01/2007 OF THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `01/06/2007 OF THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED` `02/01/2012 OF THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 09/10/2017` `OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/05/2019 OF THE` `1ST RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/02/2020 OF THE` `1ST RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/01/2022 OF THE` `1ST RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/06/2016 IN` `W.A.NO.1216/2014.`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `10/01/2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`

¶37

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

Sindhu P.P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sindhu P.P. 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

Lijo C.F Vs State of Kerala

Sreevidya N. Vs the State of Kerala

Srinivasan.a.T. Vs the District Educational Officer

Joby Joy Vs Muhammed Haneesh

P.Rajeesh Vs the State of Kerala

Preethi M Cheriyan Vs State of Kerala