Kerala High Court
Vimala C.Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 2 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 21391 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
VIMALA C.JOSEPH
W/O.BOBY, AGED 42 YEARS, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
TEACHER JUNIOR (PHYSICS), ST.SEBASTIAN'S HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL NORTH PARAVUR, RESIDING AT
MANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKEKARA P.O, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN
-683 522.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001
2 THE DIRECTOR
HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
SANTHINAGAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION
ERNAKULAM.
4 THE CORPORATE MANAGER
CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF
KOTTAPPURAM,P.O.KOTTAPPURAM, KODUNGALLUR, PIN-680 667.
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21391 OF 2015
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be working as a Higher
Secondary School Teacher (Jr) in Physics in the "St.Sebastian's
Higher Secondary School, North Paravur. She has approached
this Court impugning Ext.P6 order, as per which, her request
for rectification of an anomaly in her fixation of pay, in the
cadre of HSST (Jr), has been rejected by the Director of Higher
Secondary Education citing the reason that it is on account of
the difference in the date of option exercised by her that such
an anomaly has arisen and therefore that her plea for stepping
up of her pay to be at par with her junior cannot be considered.
2. The petitioner says that Ext.P6 is completely without
basis because it has not taken into account the fact that she
was promoted as a Higher Secondary School Teacher (Physics)
on 16.06.2004, in a leave vacancy of a teacher by name Elsy
V.K. and that she was reverted as HSST (Jr) only on 01.04.2009.
She says that, therefore, her scale of pay in HSST (Jr) in the
2004 Pay Revision scale could not have been fixed any time
prior to 01.04.2009 since until then she was working as an
HSST in Physics. The petitioner says that without adverting to
these vital facts, Ext.P6 has been issued and thus prays that the
WP(C) NO. 21391 OF 2015
same be set aside.
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.P.M.Manoj,
in response to the submissions of the petitioner as made by her
learned counsel Smt.C.M.Charisma, submitted that a counter
affidavit has been filed by the second respondent wherein the
following have been stated.
"3. The petitioner was initially appointed as
HSST (Jr) Physics in St.Sebastian's HSS, Ernakulam
with effect from 03.10.2000 and the said appointments
was approved by DHSE vide order No.Acd
A1/14789/20001/HSE dated 11.01.2003. While
working as HSST (Jr) the petitioner was promoted as
HSST (Physics) from 16.06.2004 to 31.03.2009 in the
leave vacancy of Smt.Elsy V.K. and said appointment
was approved by DHSE vide order No.Acd A6
14789/2001/HSE dated 11.09.2005. The petitioner
was reverted as HSST (Jr) Physics with effect from
01.04.2009 & again promoted as HSST (Physics) for
the period from 01.06.2010 to 31.03.2015 against the
vacancy of Smt.Elsy E.K. HSST Physics and continued
as such upto 31.07.2014.
4. It can be seen that the pay revision 2004 came
into effect from 01.07.2004. The petitioner's date of
option was 01.04.2009 and her basic pay was fixed as
Rs.11910 as on 1.04.09. However if the petitioner had
opted the date as 01.10.2008, her basic pay will be
Rs.11910 on 01.10.2008. And hence as per revision
2009 her basic pay will be Rs.22360/- on 01.10.2009
and her pay will be Rs.25280/- on 01.10.2014 which
would be as that of same Sri.Sony Raphael.
5. Therefore it is to be noted that the anomaly
arised due to the option exercised on different dates.
The opinion date once exercised is final. It cannot be
changed. It was the duty of the petitioner to opt the
correct date so as to ensure maximum salary benefits."
4. It is thus evident from the submissions of the learned
WP(C) NO. 21391 OF 2015
Senior Government Pleader that the stand of the official
respondents is that since the Pay Revision order came into
effect on 01.07.2004, the petitioner ought to have exercised
option on 01.10.2008, but that since she exercised option only
on 01.04.2009, the anomaly was bound to happen. However,
what is relevant in this case is the fact that the petitioner was
working as an HSST in Physics until 31.03.2009, when she was
reverted as HSST (Jr), on account of the closure of leave
vacancy of another teacher by name Elsy V.K. Obviously
therefore, there is some merit in the contentions of the
petitioner that she could not have exercised option prior to
01.04.2009 with respect to the 2004 Pay Revision in the HSST
(Jr) scale and I notice that this has not been considered by any
of the Authorities, including in Ext.P6.
5. I am, therefore, of the firm view that Ext.P6 cannot find
my favour and that the matter will have to be reconsidered by
the Director of Higher Secondary Education appropriately,
after adverting to the specific contention of the petitioner as
afore.
6. In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is allowed
and Ext.P6 is set aside; with a consequential direction to the
WP(C) NO. 21391 OF 2015
respondent - Director of Higher Secondary Education to
reconsider the matter, after affording an opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner - either physically or through video
conferencing - thus culminating in an appropriate order
thereon, adverting to the above specific contention of the
petitioner, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Needless to say, once orders are issued in terms of the
afore directions, all eligible benefits shall also be given to the
petitioner, if found deserving, without any avoidable delay
thereafter.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
WP(C) NO. 21391 OF 2015
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21391/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS:
P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
3.10.2000
P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.6.2010 OF 4TH
RESPONDENT.
P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
27.9.2010
P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.11.14 SENT
TO 2ND RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO 1ST RESPONDENT.
P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.3.2015 IN WPC.
NO.8381/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.6.2015 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
