Friday, 01, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sumaja.P vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 15975 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 15975 Ker
Judgement Date : 2 August, 2021

Kerala High Court
Sumaja.P vs State Of Kerala on 2 August, 2021
WP(C) No.13590/2021                       1/4

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                       PRESENT
                      THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
              Monday, the 2nd day of August 2021 / 11th Sravana, 1943
                      IA.NO.1/2021 IN WP(C) NO. 13590 OF 2021
   PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

          SUMAJA.P., W/O. DIVAKARAN NAIR,
          AGED 60 YEARS, L.P.S.A, (RETIRED),
          P.K.NAIR MEMORIAL JUNIOR BASIC SCHOOL,
          KANNAMPARIYARAM, MANKARA P.O, PALAKKAD,
          RESIDING AT SOWPARNIKAM, KANNAMPARIYARAM,
          MANKARA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678613

   RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
         GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001
      2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD,
         PIN-678001
      3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PARLI, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 612
      4. THE MANAGER, P.K.NAIR MEMORIAL JUNIOR BASIC SCHOOL, KANNAMPARIYARAM,
         MANKARA P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 613
      5. THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
         PIN-695 014


        Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
   affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to clarify judgement
   dated July 8, 2021 in this Writ Petition to the effect that the
   petitioner's appointment stands already approved and by exhibit P8 order
   the second respondent rejected the request of the petitioner for arrears
   of salary and service benefits for the period from July 4, 1996 to June
   1,2016.


        This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
   and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and this Court's judgment
   dated 08.07.2021 and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.JACOB SEBASTIAN
   & K.V.WINSTON, Advocates for the petitioner in I.A./WP(C), and of
   GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondents 1 to 3 and 5 in I.A/WP(C)the court
   passed the following:
 WP(C) No.13590/2021                  2/4

                       APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13590/2021
Exhibit P8            A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE
                      SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9            A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION DATED
                      02.07.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST
                      RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBIT P8.
 WP(C) No.13590/2021                              3/4




                                    ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
                                -----------------------------------
                                       I.A. No.1 of 2021
                                                 in
                                 W.P.(C) No.13590 of 2021
                         -------------------------------------------------
                        Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2021

                                         ORDER

This clarification petition is filed seeking the following

reliefs :-

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to clarify judgment dated July 8, 2021 in this Writ petition to the effect that the petitioner's appointment stands already approved and by exhibit P8 order the second respondent rejected the request of the petitioner for arrears of salary and service benefits for the period from July 4, 1996 to June 1, 2016.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader.

3. I notice that in the judgment it has been stated that

Ext.P9 revision is filed against Ext.P8 order of the 2 nd respondent

rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner and seeking

approval of appointment. However, by Ext.P8 order, the 2 nd

respondent had approved the petitioner's appointment from June 5,

1995 to July 14, 1996, but rejected the claim for arrears of salary.

It was against the finding in Ext.P8 that the petitioner is not WP(C) No.13590/2021 4/4

I.A. No.1 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.13590 of 2021

eligible for any arrears for the period from 15.7.1996 to 31.5.2016

that Ext.P9 revision had been preferred by the petitioner before the

Government.

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that

the statement in paragraph 3 of the judgment is a mistake. The

clarification petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are

directed to take up Ext.P9 revision petition preferred against Ext.P8

order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary and to

pass orders thereon. The time is extended by three months from

today. It is made clear that this Court has expressed no views on the

merits of the claim raised by the petitioner.

The I.A. is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

Jvt/2.8.2021

02-08-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter