M.C.Ushadevi vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 2860 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 7TH MAGHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.27614 OF 2011(B)


PETITIONER:

               M.C.USHADEVI, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (HINDI),
               KARIYAD NAMBIAR'S HIGH SCHOOL, KARIYAD SOUTH
               THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR
               SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ


RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL EDUCATION,
               DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
               PIN 695 001.

      2        DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
               THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT,
               PIN 670 101.

      3        THE HEADMISTRESS KARIYAD NAMBIARS
               HIGH SCHOOL, KARIYAD SOUTH,THALASSERY,
               KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN 673 316.


               SRI PM MANOJ SR GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
27.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 27614/11
                                      2



                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

impugning Ext.P4 audit objection, in which her

initial date of appointment has been objected

to consequently saying that she is entitled to

monetary benefits in service only from a later

date.

2. The petitioner says that, as is clear

from Ext.P4, the reasons stated by the audit

team are that since her initial date of

appointment has been shown as 15.07.1989, it

cannot be approved because the said date is a

Saturday and that she is, therefore, entitled

to the benefits only from 17.07.1989. She says

that the audit objection reflected in Ext.P4

is untenable since, as is clear from Ext.P2

attendance register, she had been working in

the school from 01.06.1989, while her approval

had been granted only with effect from

15.07.1989. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P4 WPC 27614/11

be set aside and that her pensionary benefits

be disbursed dehors the objections therein.

3. In response to the afore submissions

made on behalf of the petitioner by her

learned counsel - Smt.Jayasree Manoj, the

learned Senior Government Pleader -

Sri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that a statement has

been filed on record, wherein, it has been

averred that the District Educational Officer

(DEO) had found the mistake in the date of

appointment of the petitioner and had issued

an erratum order showing the correct date as

17.07.1989. He says that a copy of this order,

dated 27.03.1990, was also issued to the

petitioner and that salary was paid to her

reckoning the appointment as being 17.07.1989.

He submitted that since the petitioner has not

taken any steps against the said 'erratum'

approval, she cannot now turn around and

challenge Ext.P4. He then submitted that WPC 27614/11

Ext.P4 objection is based on the fact that the

petitioner's approval has taken effect only

from 17.07.1989 and not from 15.07.1989 and

therefore, that same is in order. He,

therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be

dismissed.

4. I notice that a reply affidavit has

been filed by the petitioner, wherein, she

asserts that the aforementioned 'erratum'

approval had not been received by her and that

even as on today, the records would show that

her approval has taken effect from 15.07.1989.

5. Further, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that, in any event of the

matter, since her client was appointed on

15.07.1989 and that since, as is evident from

Ext.P2, she was working with effect from

01.06.1989 continuously in the School, Ext.P4

audit objections would have no legs to stand

on. She added that in order to avoid WPC 27614/11

controversy, her client had even refunded an

amount of Rs.17,700/-, which is stated to be

the excess drawn during July 1999 and from

July 2005 to June 2009 and that she was,

thereafter, paid the arrears of pay consequent

to such re-fixation after adjusting the said

amount. She showed me Ext.P7 in substantiation

and prayed that Ext.P4 be set aside and the

respondents be directed to give her client

full benefits reckoning the date of

appointment as being 15.07.1989.

6. I have considered the afore

submissions and it is indubitable there-from

that the sole reason behind Ext.P4 objections

is that the petitioner's initial date of

appointment, namely 15.07.1989, is a Saturday

and that, therefore, her appointment can take

effect only from Monday after that, namely

17.07.1989.

7. However, as matters now stand, there WPC 27614/11

is nothing on record to show that the

petitioner's approval had been altered from

15.07.1989 to 17.07.1989, though it is so

stated in the counter affidavit. Pertinently,

no document in support of the same has been

produced before this Court and this is

relevant because, the petitioner avers in her

reply affidavit that no such document had been

made available to her either.

8. That apart, the sole relevant question

is not whether the petitioner was granted

approval with effect from 15.07.1989, but

whether her continuous service began from that

date; and there is large amount of force in

her asserting so, when one goes through Ext.P2

attendance register, where she is shown to

have been working in the school right from

01.06.1989. This aspect has not been

controverted by the State or by its

functionaries in the counter affidavit filed WPC 27614/11

on record and I am, therefore, of the view

that the petitioner's assertions will have to

be taken to be credible.

In the afore circumstances, I cannot see

any reason why the objections in Ext.P4 must

find favour in law and consequently, order

this Writ Petition and set aside the said

objection; with a consequential direction to

the respondents to ensure that all the

benefits to the petitioner, dehors Ext.P4, are

made available to her within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

Sd/-

                                          DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
      RR                                          JUDGE
 WPC 27614/11




                             APPENDIX
      PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

      EXHIBIT P1      A TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED

27.12.1989 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1989 IN RESPECT OF THE KARIYAD NAMBIARS HIGH SCHOOL.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (P) NO 85/2011/FIND DATED 26.2.2011 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION DATED NIL EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OPTION DATED 19.5.2006 ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.8.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6 (A) TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD IN RESPECT OF EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.06.2013 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,THALASSERY