Disposed

Naseema C. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Nov 2022WP(C)/3543/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala issued directions to the State Education Department to consider the petitioner's representation regarding her appointment and denied salary, passing appropriate orders after hearing the parties and deciding within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider the representation, afford an opportunity of being heard, and pass orders within two months.

Naseema C. Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 3543 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 3543 OF 2022

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

NASEEMA C. AGED 40 YEARS D/O C.HAMZA, JUNIOR LANGUAGE TEACHER-URDU C H M K S M U P SCHOOL, NANDANKIZHAYA , KOLLENGODE-578 506, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶14

3 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 506.

¶15

4 THE MANAGER, C H M K S M U P SCHOOL, NANDANKIZHAYA KOLLENGODE-678 506, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶16

WP(C) NO. 3543 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

5 THE HEADMASTER, C H M K S M U P SCHOOL, NANDANKIZHAYA KOLLENGODE-678 506, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶19

SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 3543 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner states that she was appointed as Urdu Teacher in the

¶25

CHMKSM UP School, Nandankizhaya with effect from 01.06.2017 against a retirement vacancy. According to the petitioner, approval was declined by the AEO. However, by order dated 06.02.2021, the Government has ordered that

¶26

the appointment made against additional posts could be approved on the manager furnishing appropriate declaration. The petitioner states that on the strength of the said Government Order, approval has been granted, but the salary for the period from 01.06.2017 to 05.02.2021 has been denied. It is contended that going by Exts.P7 and P8, the appointment of the petitioner against the retirement vacancy is justifiable and liable to be approved with effect from 01.06.2017 with salary. Stating all these aspects, the petitioner is

¶27

stated to have preferred Ext.P9 representation before the Government.

¶28

When this matter is taken up, Sri. M. Sajjad, the learned counsel

¶29

appearing for the petitioner, submitted that direction be issued to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 representation and take a decision within a time

¶30

WP(C) NO. 3543 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

frame with due notice.

¶33

Heard Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader. In

¶34

view of the nature of the order that I propose to pass, notice to respondents 4

¶35

and 5 is dispensed with.

¶36

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ 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

¶37

the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:

¶38

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

¶39

up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9, after

¶40

affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically

¶41

or virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorized

¶42

representative and respondents 4 and 5.

¶43

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed

¶44

expeditiously, in any event, within two months from the

¶45

WP(C) NO. 3543 OF 2022

¶46

¶47

date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶48

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy

¶49

of the writ petition along with the judgment before the

¶50

concerned respondent for further action.

¶51

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

¶56

WP(C) NO. 3543 OF 2022

¶57

¶58

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3543/2022

¶59

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶60

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.6.2017
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.4/2021/ G.EDN DATED 6.2.2021 OF THE GOVERNMENT
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B/8758/2021/D.DIS DATED 11.10.201 OF THE AEO, KOLLENGODE ALONG WITH TYPED COPY
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.2290/2015 DATED 25.7.2017
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.2091/2018 DATED 28.6.2019
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO. 19102/2021 DATED 26.10.2021
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.3/2019/G.EDN DATED 28.2.2019 OF THE GOVERNMENT
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.J2/57/2019/G.EDN DATED 8.3.2019 OF THE GOVERNMENT
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 1.11.2021 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS)

¶61

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL

Naseema C. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naseema C. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreepriya.P., Vs State of Kerala

The Centre for Environment Architecture and Human Settlements Private Limited [Cearth] Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Samuel Vs Cochin Shipyard Ltd.

Jijeesh R, Vs State of Kerala

Harigovind v. Vs the State of Kerala

M/S. Ninz Construction Private Ltd. Vs State of Kerala