Kerala High Court
Oomen Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.16067 OF 2014(G)
PETITIONER:
OOMEN MATHEW, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER,
MAR THOMA HSS, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR
SRI.HARISH R. MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
KOZHIKODE. PIN-678 001.
SRI.HARISH KUMAR - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.16067 OF 2014(G)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of February 2021
The petitioner has approached this Court impugning
Ext.P7, to the extent to which, though he has been granted a
scale of pay, it has been made clear that he will not be eligible
for arrears of pay and allowances for the period between
01.01.1997 to 3.10.2000.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court relying upon
Ext.P4 order, which, he says, was issued in the case of
another person by name K.R.Kanthilal and prayed that the
benefits given to him be also directed to be extended in his
case.
3. However, the learned Senior Government Pleader -
Sri.Harish Kumar, submitted that the petitioner's impression
- that Ext.P4 granted pay and allowances to the person
mentioned therein, is completely wrong, since it is evident
therefrom that this benefit had been denied even to the said
person. Sri.Harish Kumar submitted that, therefore, Ext.P7 to
the extent to which the petitioner has been directed to be not
eligible for arrears of pay and allowances cannot be found to
be in error or liable to be challenged on the ground of
WP(C).No.16067 OF 2014(G)
discrimination.
4. On hearing the learned Senior Government Pleader as
above, Sri.K.T.Shyam Kumar, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, affirmed that his client has approached this Court
on the strength of Ext.P4 being under the impression that the
person mentioned therein had obtained the benefit of pay and
allowances for the period in question. He conceded that if
this is not so factually, then his client could not be justified in
seeking the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.
Taking note of the afore submissions, I close this writ
petition without any further orders.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
stu JUDGE
WP(C).No.16067 OF 2014(G)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT)NO.609/99/H.EDN DATED
15.6.1999.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.7.1999 ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.2.2003 ISSUED
BY THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
PETITIONER AS HSST.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT)NO.354/98/H.EDN DATED
23.3.1998.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.4.2008 ISSUED
BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2013
IN W.P[C]NO.3290/2009.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.2.2014
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
