Allowed

Seena.M.K v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Feb 2023WP(C)/2828/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition seeking disbursement of Death cum Retirement Gratuity for a retired teacher. The court held that since no disciplinary proceedings were initiated before her retirement, the department cannot withhold the gratuity to recover alleged losses from bogus admissions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Assistant Educational Officer to disburse the entire Death cum Retirement Gratuity to the petitioner within two months.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 28TH MAGHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 2828 OF 2021

¶2

PETITIONERS:

¶3

SEENA.M.K
AGED 59 YEARS
W/O. SREENIVASAN, RESIDING AT MUTHUKATTIL KIZHAKKETHIL,
THIRUMITTACODE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶4

BY ADVS.
T.MADHU
SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI
SRI.SHAHID AZEEZ
SMT.CHANDRALEKHA SANU

¶5

RESPONDENTS:

¶6

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

¶7

2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶8

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678001.

¶9

4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679534.

¶10

5 THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT), INDIAN AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, P.B.NO.5608, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695039.

¶11

6 THE MANAGER,

¶12

AIDED UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, IRUMPAKASSERY, THIRUMITTACODE
P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679533.

¶13

7 K.M.NISHA, HINDI TEACHER, AIDED UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, IRUMPAKASSERY, THIRUMITTACODE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679533.

¶14

8 SHEEJA N., UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, AIDED UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, IRUMPAKASSERY, THIRUMITTACODE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT679533.

¶15

BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SANTHEEP ANKARATH
K.P.SUDHEER

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.K.M.FAISAL, GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO.2828 OF 2021

¶20

¶21

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶22

W.P.(C) No. 2828 of 2021

¶23

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2023

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The above writ petition is filed with the following

¶26

prayers:

¶27

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents 1 to 5 to disburse the Death cum Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and within a time frame to be f i xed by this Honourable Court, so as to secure the ends of justice. (ii) Such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court may deem f i t and proper in the circumstances of the case (SIC).

¶28

The petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary

¶29

School Teacher as against regular vacancy at the 6^th respondent school as on 01.06.1986. The appointment was approved and subsequently petitioner was promoted as Head Mistress. The petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2019. But the DCRG is not disbursed to the petitioner by Respondent 1 to 5 by taking stand that salary paid to the Respondent No.7 to 8 consequent to retention of their service based on the alleged bogus admission is to be recovered

¶30

WP(C) NO.2828 OF 2021

¶31

¶32

from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, no disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the DCRG ought not have been withheld by the department.

¶33

Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Learned Government pleader. I also heard the counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 to 8.

¶34

Today when the matter came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of judgment dated 25.06.2009 in WA. No. 1288/2007, the respondents have no authority to withheld DCRG benefits to the petitioner because, there was no disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner till her retirement. This court perused the judgment in WA. No. 1288/2007. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the judgment.

¶35

No provision has been brought to our notice, which enables the DPI while passing an order in the nature of Ext.P2 to order recovery from the Headmistress, the loss suffered by sanction of additional class divisions, given based on bogus admissions of students. It may be permissible to recover loss from the Headmistress as part of the disciplinary proceedings. So, no recovery shall be made from the appellant solely based on Ext.P2, We clarify this legal position and dispose of the Writ Appeal. If, in the disciplinary action, any recovery is ordered, the appellant will be free to resist it raising all the contentions available to her under law.

¶36

WP(C) NO.2828 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

Admittedly there is no disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner till her retirement. In such circumstances, no recovery is possible from the petitioner alleging there was loss due to bogus admissions. Therefore the entire DCRG amount is to be disbursed to the petitioner forthwith.

¶39

Therefore this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

¶40

i. The 4^th respondent is directed to disburse the entire DCRG amount to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

ii. Petitioners will produce a certified copy of this judgment before the 1^st respondent for compliance.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶44

¶45

WP(C) NO.2828 OF 2021

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2828/2021

¶48

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶49

EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 30.7.2007.

¶50

`EXHIBIT P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF` `25.7.2008 ISSUED` `RESPONDENT.`	`THE PROCEEDINGS DATED` `BY THE FOURTH`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF` `2.7.2008 SUBMITTE` `RESPONDENT BEFORE`	`THE REPORT DATED` `D BY THE FOURTH` `THE THIRD RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF` `29.6.2009 IN WP(C` `FILES OF THIS HON`	`THE INTERIM ORDER DATED` `) NO.17966/2009 ON THE` `OURABLE COURT.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF` `21.5.2018 IN WP(C` `FILES OF THIS HON`	`THE JUDGMENT DATED` `) NO.17966/2009 ON THE` `OURABLE COURT.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF` `BY THE PRESENT HE` `RESPONDENT SCHOOL`	`THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED` `ADMISTRESS OF THE SIXTH` `DATED NIL.`
`Exhibit P7`	`THE TRUE COPY OF` `NO.34025/J2/12/G.` `ISSUED BY THE SEC` `GENERAL EDUCATION`	`THE CIRCULAR` `EDN. DATED 21-6-2012` `RETARY TO GOVERNMENT,` `DEPARTMENT.`

¶51

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶52

 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Seena.M.K v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seena.M.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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. P. Muneeb Vs the State of Kerala

The Manager, ( K.R. Kochukrishnan )Kannadi Higher Secondary School, Kannadi, Vs State of Kerala

The Manager, ( K.R. Kochukrishnan ) Kannadi Higher Secondary School, Kannadi, Vs State of Kerala

Merin Abraham, Vs State of Kerala

Saritha R Vs the State of Kerala

V.v.Mohanraj Vs the State of Kerala