Kerala High Court
Beena Antony vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.13803 OF 2011(A)
PETITIONER:
BEENA ANTONY,
L.P.S.A. GOVERNMENT JBLPS
ETTUMANOOR SUB DISTRICT,
KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJI MATHEW
SRI.DENU JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
GENERAL EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM-695001.
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
KOTTAYAM, 686001
BY ADV.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.13803 OF 2011
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that she was working
as a Headmistress in the J.B.L.P.S. Peroor,
Kottayam, for the period from 16.04.2004 to
10.07.2008; and she claims all service
benefits, including salary and increments,
during the period when she was so working.
2. Shri.Denu Joseph, learned counsel for
the petitioner, concedes that even though the
petitioner was promoted as Headmistress of the
school on 16.04.2004 and continued in such
capacity till 10.07.2008, she was removed from
the said post because her seniority was
revised and she was found junior to various
other teachers. He explained that this was
because her original seniority was reckoned
taking note of the service in another district
and giving her the benefit of being the
relative of a "Jawan"; but that, through
Ext.P1 judgment, it is declared that she is
WP(C).No.13803 OF 2011
not entitled to such benefit and therefore,
that her reversion in seniority was approved.
3. The learned counsel submitted that his
client is not challenging her reversion but is
only seeking the benefits in the post of
Headmistress, during the period which she so
functioned. He submitted that this benefit
has, in fact, been granted to her by Ext.P1
judgment itself, wherein, it has been
clarified that the salary drawn by her in the
promoted post shall not be recovered. The
learned counsel concluded his submissions by
taking me through Ext.P2 judgment - which was
delivered in the case of a similarly placed
person - wherein, directions had been issued
to the competent respondents to pay salary and
other benefits attached to the post of
Headmistress during the period when the
petitioner therein actually worked in the said
post.
WP(C).No.13803 OF 2011
4. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed
that same benefit, as has been accorded by
this Court in Ext.P2 judgment, be directed to
be given to his client by the respondents.
5. In response, the learned Senior
Government Pleader Shri.P.M.Manoj, admitted
that the petitioner was holding the post of
Headmistress from 16.08.2004 to 09.07.2008 and
added that the petitioner had exercised option
to come out to the scale of the Headmistress
with effect from 16.08.2004, leading to her
pay being accordingly fixed, as per the order
of the Assistant Educational Officer dated
16.10.2004. He then submitted that though the
petitioner worked as Headmistress till
09.07.2008, her subsequent increments with
effect from 01.08.2005, 01.08.2006 and
01.08.2007 were not granted to her, since her
promotion itself was held under objection due
to seniority issues and that she was
subsequently reverted. He said that, however,
WP(C).No.13803 OF 2011
surrender of earned leave for 20 days as on
18.08.2005 and 30 days as on 13.09.2006, was
sanctioned to the petitioner and that she was
given a basic pay of Rs.5,800/- plus
allowances in the Headmistress's scale for the
period she worked in such capacity. He
submitted that it is, therefore, that the
learned Division Bench, in Ext.P1, directed
that no benefits given to her in the said post
be recovered.
6. However, to a pointed question from
this Court, Sri.P.M.Manoj conceded that, in
Ext.P2 judgment - which has been obtained by a
person similarly situated - it has been
clarified that the said person will be
entitled to salary and other benefits attached
to the post of Headmistress but contended that
this will not be applicable to the petitioner,
since she was not paid these benefits and
since Ext.P1 judgment only orders that her
emoluments already granted be not recovered.
WP(C).No.13803 OF 2011
He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition
be dismissed.
7. Even when I hear the learned Senior
Government Pleader on the afore lines, when
one examines Ext.P1 judgment very closely, it
is clear that the final clarification therein
is to the effect that the salary drawn by her
in the promoted post shall not be recovered.
It is obvious that what is intended by the
learned Division Bench is that she is entitled
to the salary as long as she worked in the
post of Headmistress.
8. Further, going by Ext.P2, it is
indubitable that in the case of a person
similarly situated, another learned Division
Bench of this Court has declared that she will
be entitled to the salary and other benefits
attached to the post of Headmistress, during
the period she actually worked in the said
post. This declaration is, without doubt
WP(C).No.13803 OF 2011
applicable herein also because, the petitioner
was working in the said post for the period
mentioned above.
I am, therefore, of the firm view that the
2nd respondent has erred in declining the claim
of the petitioner for salary and other
benefits for the period when she worked in the
post of Headmistress, namely from 16.04.2004
to 10.07.2008; and that this matter should be
reconsidered by it within a short time frame.
Resultantly, this writ petition is
ordered, directing the 2nd respondent - Deputy
Director of Education to reconsider the claim
of the petitioner for salary and other
benefits for the period when she worked as a
Headmistress from 16.04.2004 to 10.07.2008,
after affording her an opportunity of being
heard - either physically or through video
conferencing - thus culminating in an
appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as
WP(C).No.13803 OF 2011
is possible but not later than two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
It is needless to say that while
completing the afore exercise, my observations
above as also the ratio of Exts.P1 and P2
judgments will be implicitly kept in mind by
the 2nd respondent.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/18.1.2021
WP(C).No.13803 OF 2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL
NO.3008/2007 DATED 27.03.2008
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL
NO.2411/2007 DATED 21.07.2009
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
23.07.2010 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
MC
(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE
