Priya C.C vs Director General Of Education
2021 Latest Caselaw 14467 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
         TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 13058 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

              PRIYA C.C
              AGED 42 YEARS
              D/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, UPSA, SKHS, ANANDPURAM,
              IRINJALAKKUDA, (RESIDING AT PAYYAKKAL, VELLANGALLOOR VIA
              IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 662)

              BY ADVS.
              T.T.MUHAMOOD
              A.MOHAMMED SAVAD
              NAZEER HUZAIN.H



RESPONDENTS:

     1        DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION
              DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-675 001

     2        THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
              OFFICE OF THE DEO, IRINJALAKUDA

     3        THE HEADMASTER,
              SKHS,ANANDAPURAM, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR-680 305

     4        THE MANAGER,
              SKHS,ANANDAPURAM, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR-680 305


OTHER PRESENT:

              SRI. T. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR- SR. G.P.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 13058 OF 2021
                                    2

                              JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:-

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext.P6 order issued by the 2 nd respondent.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to retain the pay as revised in Ext.P3, P4 & P5.

\

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction, directing the respondents to sanction the benefit of GO(P) No.7/2016/Fin dated 20.01.2016, retaining the petitioner's pay @ Rs.26500 w.e.f 01.07.2014 and granting subsequent increments on 01.06.2015, 01.06.2016, 01.06.2017, 01.06.2018 and 01.06.2019.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner was appointed in a leave vacancy

from 03.06.2013 to 14.07.2017. While so, a regular vacancy

occurred on 01.06.2016 and the petitioner was shifted to the

said vacancy. It is submitted that fixation of pay of the

petitioner on account of the pay revision in 2014 was effected

taking note of the prior service of the petitioner from

01.07.2014. It is submitted that, thereafter, an objection has WP(C) NO. 13058 OF 2021

been apparently raised stating that the petitioner is eligible for

pay revision only w.e.f 01.06.2016 since her regular service

commenced only on that date. The learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the said contention is completely

untenable and that had the petitioner been put on notice, the

factual and legal aspects of the matter could have been

brought to the notice of the respondents. It is submitted that,

without any such notice, Ext.P6 order was passed on

10.02.2021 and the petitioner's pay was re-fixed and she is

required to refund amounts.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits, on

instructions, that Ext.P6 order was passed on the basis of

orders dated 01.06.2019 and 29.11.2019 and that the

petitioner had not been put on notice or heard before the

orders were passed.

5. In view of the contentions raised in this writ petition, I

am of the opinion that the issue requires a reconsideration at

the hands of the author of Ext.P6. It is clear that Ext.P6 order WP(C) NO. 13058 OF 2021

had been passed without hearing the petitioner. I am of the

opinion that since the petitioner had been granted fixation of

pay pursuant to the pay revision with effect from the date of

effect of the pay revision order and since the petitioner was

drawing the enhanced salary, the petitioner was entitled to a

notice and a hearing before proceedings in the nature of Ext.P6

could have been issued.

6. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P6 order is set

aside. There will be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to

reconsider the issue with notice to the petitioner as well as

respondents 3 and 4 and after hearing them through any

appropriate means including video conferencing. Appropriate

steps shall be taken in the matter only after hearing the

petitioner as directed above.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE bng/13.07.2021 WP(C) NO. 13058 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13058/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 03.06.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (WITH TYPED COPY)

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, SKHS, ANANDAPURAM

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY OF THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2014 PAY REVISION ORDER

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.K.DIS/B5/3726/17 DATED 01.06.2017

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.80(1)/19 DATED 20.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REGULARIZING THE INCREMENTS OF THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B5/1035/2021 DATED 10.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT