Allowed

V.L.Lucy v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Nov 2022WP(C)/3098/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing specific government orders (P12 and P13). It directed the Government to reconsider the petitioner's appointment benefits afresh within four months after hearing, citing the Proviso to Rule 2 Chapter XXIII of KER.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P12 and P13 quashed; Government directed to reconsider petitioner's grievance and pass orders within four months.

V.L.Lucy Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 3098 OF 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 30^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 3098 OF 2009

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

V.L.LUCY AGED 48 YEARS W/0 T.P .VARGHESE,, NEEDLE WORK TEACHER, VANIVILASAM, U.P.SCHOOL, PADOOR, THRISSUR 680 524.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.EK.E.HAMZ

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14.

¶14

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR.

¶15

4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MULLASSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶17

6 THE MANAGER VANIVILASAM U.P.SCHOOL PADOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 524.

¶18

7 THE HEADMASTER VANIVILASAM U.P.SCHOOL PADOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 524.

¶19

WP(C) NO. 3098 OF 2009

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.K.M.FAISAL, GP

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C) NO. 3098 OF 2009

¶25

¶26

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶27

--------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 3098 of 2009

¶28

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2022

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

¶31

(i) Call for the records relating to Exhibits P10, P12, P13 and also Exhibit P8 to the extent it does not grant approval to the petitioner from 1990-91 onwards and quash the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

¶32

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1^st , 2^nd , 3^rd , 4^th and 5^th respondents to grant the petitioner the benefits flowing from Exhibit P14 and also pay and allowances due since 1990-91

¶33

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1^st respondents to effectively reconsider and pass appropriate orders upon Exhibit P13 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a time limit in the light of Exhibit P14.

¶34

(iv) Pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.” [SIC]

¶35

The petitioner was appointed as a needle work teacher against the retirement vacancy from 2.7.1990 at VVUP

¶36

WP(C) NO. 3098 OF 2009 4

¶37

School, Padoor. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents 1 to 5 declined approval to her appointment. Hence, she filed OP No. 759/1995. It resulted in her favour. Then, the State filed Writ Appeal No. 1359/2000. The same was dismissed. Thereafter, the Assistant Educational Officer ordered in June 2001 to approve the appointment for the year 1990-91. Aggrieved by confining the approval to 1990-91 only, the petitioner moved the Director. The same was rejected. Then, the petitioner preferred revision before the Government. The same was also dismissed as per Ext.P12. Thereafter, Ext.P13 was submitted before the Minister of Education. The same was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶38

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

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Proviso to Rule 2 Chapter XXIII of KER substituted as per GO(P) No.189/2005/G.Edn. dated 17.6.2005 published in Gazette dated 25.6.2005, (Ext.P14 is the Government Order), says that the Specialist Teachers appointed in Lower Primary Schools or Lower Primary Sections of Upper Primary Schools or

¶40

WP(C) NO. 3098 OF 2009 5

¶41

High Schools after the 6^th day of March, 1979 and whose appointments were approved shall be allowed to continue as such till their retirement, resignation, death or transfer and the posts of such Specialist Teachers shall be allowed to continue

¶42

for their such continuance till they vacate the posts.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was approved only for the period 1990-91. She continued in the school without any benefit till 2013. It is also submitted by the petitioner that after 2013, the petitioner was deployed in a Government school and she continued there till her retirement and she was getting only the basic pay. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is entitled all the benefits in the light of the Proviso to Rule 2 Chapter XXIII of KER. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that there is nothing to interfere with Exts.P12 and P13 and all the contentions of the petitioner were considered in those orders by the Government.

¶44

This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Government Pleader. A perusal of Exts.P12 and P13 will not show that the contention based on proviso to

¶45

WP(C) NO. 3098 OF 2009 6

¶46

Rule 12 Chapter XXIII of KER is considered by the Government. Admittedly, the petitioner continued in the school till 2013. If

¶47

that is the case, the petitioner can file a fresh representation relying the Proviso to Rule 2 Chapter XXIII of KER and the Government will consider the same afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. To facilitate the Government to pass fresh orders. Exts.P12 and P13 can be quashed.

¶48

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

¶49

1. Exts.P12 and P13 are quashed.

¶50

The petitioner is free to file a representation narrating

¶51

the grievance raised in this writ petition within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

Once such a representation is received, the Government will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in the light of Proviso to Rule 2 Chapter XXIII of KER as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within four months from

¶53

WP(C) NO. 3098 OF 2009 7

¶54

the date of receipt of the representation.

¶55

If the petitioner is entitled any benefits based on the

¶56

above decision, the same should be disbursed to her within two months from the date on which the above decision is taken by

¶57

the Government.

¶58

SD/-

¶59

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

SKS

¶62

WP(C) NO. 3098 OF 2009 8

¶63

APPENDIX

¶64

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶65

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER

¶66

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A6-8856/90 OF THE DIST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER.

¶67

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B4-30250/90/D.DIS OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION.

¶68

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K.DIS.F2-113591/991/DPI OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶69

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT.) NO. 2396/94/GE OF THE GOVT.

¶70

EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP NO. 759/1995-M

¶71

EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WA NO. 1395/2000

¶72

EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/1248/2000 OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER.

¶73

EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶74

EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D/DIS 76308/02/RA (2)/DPI OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶75

EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVT.

¶76

EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT.) NO. 4849/03/G.EDN OF THE GOVERNMENT

¶77

EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 14188/K.I/08/G.EDN OF THE GOVERNMENT

¶78

EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (P) NO. 189/2005/G.EDN OF THE GOVERNMENT

¶79

EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :NIL

V.L.Lucy v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.L.Lucy v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Johnson Vs Managing Director

Ravindran G. Vs the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram

Gfeetha S. Vs District Collector

Aswanidev C. Vs the Director, Kerala State Open School

V.v.Sathyan Vs the State Council of Educational Research and Training

P.P.Muhammed Farook & Another Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Others