Disposed

Suhara.U v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Feb 2023WP(C)/222/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged appointment order denying salary benefits from 2017. Court held alternative remedy available via revision directly to 2nd respondent and fixed timelines for disposal. Writ petition not dismissed but referred for revision proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to file revision before 2nd respondent within two weeks; lower authority directed to dispose of revision within two months after receiving certified judgment.

Suhara.U Vs 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

TUESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 222 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUHARA.U ARABIC TEACHER, AUP SCHOOL, KURUVA, MAKKARAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM-676507, PIN - 676507 BY ADVS. AUGUSTINE JOSEPH TONY AUGUSTINE

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014 3 DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676519 4 ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER MANGADA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679324 5 THE MANAGER AUP SCHOOL, KURUVA, MAKKARAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676507 SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR.GP

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶11

21.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 222 OF 2023

¶13

¶14

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(C)No. 222 of 2023

¶17

Dated this the 21^st day of February, 2023

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The above writ petition is filed with the following

¶20

prayers:

¶21

“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the 4 th respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 1.6.2017 onwards with salary instead of notionally.

¶22

(ii) declare that Ext.P8 to the extend the 4 th respondent approved the appointment of the petitioner for the period from 1.6.2017 to 5.2.2021 as notionally is illegal and arbitrary.

¶23

(iii) issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 to the extend it approved the appointment of the petitioner notionally for the period from 1.6.2017 to 5.2.2021.

¶24

(iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the 4 th respondent to pay salary for the period from 1.6.2017 to 5.2.2021.

¶25

(v) dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

¶26

(vi) issue such other writs, orders, direction

¶27

¶28

WP(C) NO. 222 OF 2023

¶29

including interim orders deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶30

(vii) allow this writ petition with costs.”[SIC]

¶31

Petitioner appointed in a retirement vacancy

¶32

on 01.06.2017. Her appointment was rejected stating that she is aged 49 years, crossed the upper age limit and not entitled for rule 51A claim since the prior service was less than one year. According to the petitioner, one year service under the rule 51A claim was introduced based on a decision of the Apex court in 2016. The prior service of the petitioner started from 1988. According to the petitioner, Government in similar cases had relaxed age limit and approved appointments. It is also the case of the petitioner that, G.O.(P).No.4/2021/G.Edn dated 6.2.2021 also clarified to approve similar appointments. Accordingly, the Government allowed the revision petition and directed the Director to do the necessary steps, is the submission. However, the AEO now approved the appointment with effect from 01.06.2017 onwards notionally and monitory benefits were given

¶33

¶34

WP(C) NO. 222 OF 2023

¶35

only with effect from 06.02.2021 only. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent issued Ext.P10 directing the petitioner to approach the 2^nd respondent with a revision. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶36

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

¶37

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P8 by which the monitory benefits is not given to the petitioner from 01.06.2017. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of filing a revision before the 2^nd respondent. If the petitioner submits a revision within a time frame, there can be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the same also, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶38

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶39

i. The petitioner is free to file a revision against Ext.P8 order before the 2^nd respondent,

¶40

¶41

WP(C) NO. 222 OF 2023

¶42

within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

ii. Once such a revision is received along with a certified copy of this judgment, the 2^nd respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the revision.

¶44

iii. Before passing final orders, the 2^nd respondent will give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 5^th respondent.

¶45

iv. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2^nd respondent for compliance.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶48

¶49

WP(C) NO. 222 OF 2023

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 222/2023

¶52

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶53

EXHIBIT1	EXHIBIT.P1:	TRUE COPY	OF THE
	APPOINTMENT THE PETITION	ORDER DATED ER.	1.6.2017 OF
EXHIBIT2	EXHIBIT.P2:T	RUE COPY OF	THE ORDER
	DATED 25. RESPONDENT.	05.2018 OF	THE 4TH
EXHIBIT3	EXHIBIT.P3: DATED 1.06.	TRUE COPY OF 2019 FROM TH	THE ORDER E DISTRICT
	EDUCATIONAL	OFFICER MALAPPU	RAM
EXHIBIT4	EXHIBIT.P4:	TRUE COPY OF T	HE ORDER IN
	G.O (MS) NO 24.01.2020	486/2020/GEN.	EDN. DATED
EXHIBIT5	EXHIBIT.P5: PETITION DAT	TRUE COPY OF T ED 3.04.2020	HE REVISION
EXHIBIT6	EXHIBIT.P6: DATED 11.2.2	TRUE COPY OF 021 OF THE 1ST	THE ORDER RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT7	EXHIBIT.P7: DATED 19.3.2	TRUE COPY OF 022 OF THE 2ND	THE ORDER RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT8	EXHIBIT.P8:	TRUE COPY	OF THE
	PROCEEDINGS 4TH RESPONDE	DATED 16.9.20 NT	22 OF THE
EXHIBIT9	EXHIBIT.P9: DATED 21.9. 3RD RESPONDE	TRUE COPY OF 2022 SUBMITTED NT	THE APPEAL BEFORE THE
EXHIBIT10	EXHIBIT.P10:	TRUE COPY OF	THE LETTER
	DATED 17.1 RESPONDENT	2.2022 FROM	THE 3RD
RESPONDENTS EX	HIBITS : NIL

¶54

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Suhara.U v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhara.U 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

Prakasan.P Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Kumar M., Vs the State of Kerala

Jinse George, Vs State of Kerala

Viswanathan v. Vs Smt. Santhy

Susan John Vs State of Kerala

Sini R.S Vs the District Educational Officer