Sulaikha K.N vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 1937 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.22035 OF 2018(D)


PETITIONER:

               SULAIKHA K.N.
               W/O.ABDUL LATEEF.C., AGED 50 YEARS,
               CHEERAKKOLIL HOUSE, IDIMUZHIKKAL,CHELEMBRA,
               MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

               BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
               DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT
               SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001.

      2        THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
               THE DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC
               INUSTRUCTIONS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

      3        THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
               MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505.

      4        THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
               KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 638.

      5        THE MANAGER
               A.M.L.P.SCHOOL, ANDIYOORKUNNU,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
               PIN-673 638.

      6        THE HEADMISTRESS
               A.M.L.P.SCHOOL, ANDIYOORKUNNU,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
               PIN-673 637.


               BY ADV.
               SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD           ON
19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.22035 OF 2018

                                     2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to be

working as a Lower Primary School Teacher in

A.M.L.P. School, Anthiyoorkunnu, has

approached this Court impugning the

objections raised by the competent

Educational Authorities with respect to the

salary fixation, since they have refused to

reckon her service as a leave substitute from

04/10/1995 to 29/04/1997 in three spells, for

a total period of 7 months and 25 days.

2. The petitioner says that, as is

evident from Ext.P1, the competent

Educational Authorities are all aware of

Ext.P3 judgment of this Court, wherein, a

similarly placed teacher had been given

identical benefits as claimed by her; but had

still recorded that the objections will

sustain until it is clarified by the

Government. The petitioner, therefore, prays

that the objections, as recorded in Ext.P1, WP(C).No.22035 OF 2018

as against her salary fixation be vacated and

to declare that the period of broken service

as leave substitute is also liable to be

reckoned for the purpose of such fixation.

3. In response to the submissions of

the learned counsel for the petitioner -

Shri.Rakesh K., the learned Senior Government

Pleader - Shri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that

Ext.P1 records the objections against

reckoning of the broken service of the

petitioner on earlier occasions, but then

showed me that the Deputy Director of

Education has only sought certain

clarifications, from the Government, based on

Ext.P3 judgment. He, therefore, prayed that

the Deputy Director of Education be allowed

to approach the Government and seek

clarifications, before the objections in

Ext.P1 are decided one way or the other.

4. Even when I hear the learned Senior WP(C).No.22035 OF 2018

Government Pleader on the afore lines, the

fact remains that in Ext.P3 a learned Judge

of this Court has found that, on account of

Rules 6(a) and 61(4) Chapter XIV of the

Kerala Education Rules, the approved period

of broken services are liable to be counted

for the purpose of declaration of probation

and also towards the increments. When this

declaration has been accepted by the

respondents, they cannot turn around and say

that in the case of the petitioner herein -

who is similarly situated as the petitioner

in Ext.P3 judgment - these benefits cannot be

made applicable.

5. In such circumstances, I am of the

firm view that Ext.P1, as per which the

Deputy Director of Education is stated to

have sought certain clarifications from the

Government even with respect to Ext.P3

judgment, cannot find my favour and that

said Authority must consider this matter, WP(C).No.22035 OF 2018

expressly adverting to the said judgment,

thus leading to an appropriate order with

respect to the petitioner's claims.

In the afore circumstances, I order this

writ petition and direct the 3rd respondent -

Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram, to

consider the petitioner's claims with respect

to her fixation of salary and payment of

increments, specifically adverting to Ext.P3

judgment of this Court and after affording

her an opportunity of being heard - either

physically or through video conferencing -

thus culminating in an appropriate order

thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but

not later than three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

I clarify that while the afore exercise

is completed, the 3rd respondent must apply

his mind to the issues at hand, particularly

the declarations in Ext.P3 judgment and will WP(C).No.22035 OF 2018

do so without waiting for any clarification

from the Government, as has been recorded in

Ext.P1.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC/22.1.2021 WP(C).No.22035 OF 2018

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 28.04.2018.

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 14.02.2018 IN WP(C)NO.351/2018. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

MC

                     (TRUE COPY)                PA TO JUDGE