WP(C) NO. 21142 OF 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 21142 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
REGINA JOSEPH
D/O.K.P.JOSEPH, THALIKANDATHIL HOUSE,
CHATHAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE 673601
BY ADV PRAKASH M.P.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001
2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KOZHIKODE 673 001.
3 MANAGER,
ST. THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL,
THOTTUMUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673639.
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21142 OF 2022 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner contends that while she was working as High School Assistant (Natural Science) in the St. Thomas High School, Thottumukkom, she attained superannuation on 31.05.2021. For want of three days qualifying service, the claim raised by the petitioner herein for pensionary benefits was rejected by Exhibit P4 order. In the said circumstances, the 3rd respondent, who is the Manager of the School preferred Exhibit P6 petition before the 1st respondent, but the same stands rejected by Exhibit P8 order. The petitioner asserts that before passing Exhibit P4 and P8 orders, the petitioner herein was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. She contends that she has now preferred Ext.P9 representation before the 1st respondent which is stated to be pending. It is in the above backdrop that this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exhibits P4 and P8 and for consequential reliefs.
2. Sri. Prakash M.P., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would refer to the judgment of this Court in Abdurahiman Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (2) KLT 105] and it is argued that the prior service rendered by the teachers in aided schools is liable to be counted for pension. It is submitted that before passing Ext.P8 order, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the WP(C) NO. 21142 OF 2022 3 petitioner and the same cannot be sustained.
3. I have heard Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader. In the nature of the order that I propose to pass, notice to the 3rd respondent is dispensed with.
4. I find that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court and by Exhibit P7 judgment, this Court had directed the 1st respondent to hear the petitioner before orders are passed on the petition filed by the Manager. The said judgment was rendered on 23.9.2021. However, it seems that while passing orders on the petition filed by the Manager, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to advance her contentions. I have no doubt in my mind that serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as none of the contentions raised by the petitioner was adverted to by the 1st respondent while rejecting the petition filed by the Manager. I find that the petitioner has already approached the 1st respondent and has filed Exhibit P9, which is stated to be pending. In that view of the matter, it is only just and proper that the 1st respondent shall consider the issue with notice to the petitioner as well as the Manager. Exhibit P8 order which has been passed without notice to the petitioner will stand quashed for the reasons above.
WP(C) NO. 21142 OF 2022 4
5. Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of by issuing the following directions:
A) Exhibit P8 will stand quashed.
B) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorised representative and the 3rd respondent.
C) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
D) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE NS WP(C) NO. 21142 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21142/2022 PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 03.08.1990 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE EVIDENCING SERVICE FROM JULY 1999 TO JULY 2009 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.04.2012 IN W.P (C) NO. 1397/2012 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.02.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (MS) NO.401/ 2019/F IN DATED 28.10.2019 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.03.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE STATE GOVERNMENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.09.2021 IN W.P (C) NO. 19886/2021 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.09.2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.11.2021 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.12.2021 OF THE MANAGER Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.01.2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL