Allowed

Sreeja K v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Apr 2023WP(C)/11649/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed by a teacher seeking arrears and future salary following her approved appointment. The court held that an approved appointment entitles the petitioner to salary, especially since the prior stay order had been disposed of and the approval could not be unsettled.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd respondent directed to disburse arrears of salary within three months and ensure current salary from 01.05.2023 onwards.

Sreeja K Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 11649 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SREEJA K AGED 41 YEARS WIFE OF HARISH KUMAR, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (JUNIOR) BOTANY, N G P M HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VENCHEMPU, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691333 BY ADV V.A.MUHAMMED

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶10

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION (HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION WING) HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶11

3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 685036

¶12

4 THE MANAGER N G P M HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VENCHEMPU, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691333

¶13

5 THE PRINCIPAL N G P M HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VENCHEMPU, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691333 BY ADV.SMT.NISHA BOSE, SENIOR GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 11649 OF 2023

¶16

¶17

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶18

------------------------------

¶19

W.P.(C)No. 11649 of 2023

¶20

Dated this the 10^th day of April, 2023

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The above writ petition is filed with the following

¶23

prayers:

¶24

“(i) declare that the Petitioner is entitled to get salary right from the date of appointment.

¶25

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directions commanding the Respondents to release the salary due to the Petitioner and forthwith.

¶26

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directions commanding the 1 st Respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders upon Exhibit P-11 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner within a time limit.

¶27

(iv) to dispense with filing of English translation of vernacular documents produced along with the Writ Petition.

¶28

(v) 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]

¶29

¶30

WP(C) NO. 11649 OF 2023

¶31

The petitioner was appointed as HSST (Junior) (Botany) from 18.12.2021 and she has got approval as well. The grievance of the petitioner is that she was not paid salary even though her appointment was approved. Hence this writ petition is filed.

¶32

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

¶33

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, in the light of Ext.P8 judgment, the denial of salary to the petitioner is unsustainable. The Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the approval was granted to the petitioner when a stay order passed by this Court in W.P. (C)No.8090/2022 was in force.

¶34

This Court considered the contentions of the

¶35

petitioner and the Government Pleader. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner's appointment was

¶36

¶37

WP(C) NO. 11649 OF 2023

¶38

approved as on today as evident by Ext.P7. It is also an admitted fact that, as on today Ext.P7 is not modified or cancelled. If that is so, the petitioner is entitled salary. Moreover, W.P.(C)No.8090/2022 which is mentioned by the Government Pleader is already disposed of endorsing the finding in W.P. (C)No.19808/2021. In that judgment it is clearly stated that the approval of appointments already granted shall not be unsettled. If that is the case, the department can not unsettle the approval already granted to the petitioner. In such circumstances, according to me, there is no reason for denying salary to the petitioner.

¶39

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

¶40

i. The 3^rd respondent is directed to

¶41

disburse the arrears of salary due to the petitioner as on today, as expeditiously as

¶42

¶43

WP(C) NO. 11649 OF 2023

¶44

possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a stamped certified copy of this judgment.

¶45

ii. The petitioner is also entitled for current salary also from next month that is from 01.05.2023 onwards.

¶46

iii. Petitioner will produce a stamped certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 3^rd respondent for compliance.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶49

¶50

WP(C) NO. 11649 OF 2023

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11649/2023

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶54

EXT.	P-1	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (MS.) NO. 28/2014/G.EDN. DATED 04.02.2014
EXT.	P-2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
		ACD.C1/53367/ 2014/HSE DATED 27.04.2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.	P-3	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (MS.) NO. 26/2019/G.EDN. DATED 06.03.2019
EXT.	P-4	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (RT.) NO. 5230/2021/GEDN DATED 19.11.2021
EXT.	P-5	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE
EXT.	P-6	TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST OF HSST JUNIOR BOTANY WHO ATTENDED THE INTERVIEW ON 17.12.2021
EXT.	P-7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. TRO- 05/7929/2021/RDD/HSE DATED 29.04.2022 OF THE RDD HSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXT.	P-8	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C) NO. 37590/2022 DATED 15.02.2023
EXT.	P-9	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C) NO. 38210/2022 DATED 09.02.2023
EXT.	P-10	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT W.P. (C) NO. 39267/2022 DATED 07.02.2023
EXT.	P-11	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 01.03.2023 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS)

¶55

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶56

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Sreeja K v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreeja K 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

Saritha K Vs the District Educational Officer

Shihab Thangal Educational & Charitable Trust, Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Thahir, Vs Cvm Shereef

Alex Mathew Vs Union of India

Rev. M . Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Kunjamma. P Vs Girija.K.R