H.Neelakandan vs The Government Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 13324 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
         MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 26098 OF 2019
PETITIONER:

              H.NEELAKANDAN, AGED 51 YEARS
              SON OF K.R.HARIHARA IYER, OFFICE ATTENDANT,
              SAMOOHAM HIGH SCHOOL, NORTH PARAVUR,
              ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683513.

              BY ADVS.
              V.A.MUHAMMED
              SMT.P.A.JENZIA
              M.H.SHAJAHAN RAWTHER


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
              GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE-II,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

     2        THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
              JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

     3        THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
              ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD-682030.

     4        THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
              ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683101.

     5        THE MANAGER, SAMOOHAM HIGH SCHOOL, NORTH PARUR,
              ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683513.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.P.M.MANOJ-SR GP
              SRI.M.A.FAYAZ
              SMT.M.VISHNUPRIYA
              SMT.C.B.ABHINAVA
 WPC 26098/19
                            2




THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WPC 26098/19
                                      3



                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be working as an

Office Attendant in the services of 'Samooham High

School', North Paravur and says that he was

illegally and unnecessarily placed under

suspension by the Manager of the School, based on

certain unsubstantiated and reckless allegations.

2. The petitioner says that, rightly, the

jurisdictional District Educational Officer (DEO),

interfered with the order of suspension and

directed his reinstatement, as is evident from

Ext.P2; but that the Manager disregarded the same

and continued him under suspension without any

sanction being obtained from any of the concurring

Authorities, as is mandated under Rule 67 Chapter

XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER for

short).

3. The petitioner then concedes that the

Manager, thereafter, 'managed' an order from the

Deputy Director of Education (DDE), which was, WPC 26098/19

then taken up in Revision by him before the

Government, leading it to be allowed, directing

his reinstatement. He refers to Ext.P6 in support

and accuses the Manager of still not reinstating

him but making an attempt before this Court, by

filing W.P(C)No.37486/2018, to continue him under

illegal suspension. He asserts that the

aforementioned Writ Petition was dismissed through

Ext.P7 judgment, which finally compelled the

Manager to reinstate him with effect from

18.01.2019.

4. The petitioner says that during the period

from 08.12.2017 to 17.01.2019, his salary has not

been paid and the said period remains

unregularised even now. He submits that,

therefore, he preferred Exts.P8 to P11

representations before various competent

Authorities, but that no action has been taken by

any of them, to either regularise the period of

suspension or to pay him the service benefits or WPC 26098/19

salary during the period. He, therefore, prays

that a direction be issued to the respondents to

regularise the period of suspension as duty and to

disburse to him the pay and allowances from

08.12.2017 to 17.01.2019, within a time frame to

be fixed by this Court.

5. I have heard Smt.P.A.Jenzia - learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner;

Sri.M.A.Fayas - learned counsel appearing for the

Manager and Sri.P.M.Manoj - learned Senior

Government Pleader, appearing for the official

respondents.

6. In response to the submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel -

Smt.P.A.Jenzia as afore, the learned counsel

appearing for the Manager - Sri.M.A.Fayaz,

submitted that the school is being managed by a

Committee and there are differences of opinion

between them as to who the present Manager is. He

submitted that, in fact, elections were conducted WPC 26098/19

to the society and a new Manager elected on

16.02.2020, but that he does not have instructions

as to whether said person has been granted

approval by the competent educational Authorities.

He submitted that, therefore, he is unable to

accede before this Court that the orders with

respect to the petitioner will be issued by the

present person in office.

7. In reply, Smt.Jenzia submitted that her

client has reliable information that there is no

approved Manager for the school as of now and

therefore, reiterated that the competent

educational Authorities be directed to issue

appropriate orders.

8. I, therefore, asked Sri.P.M.Manoj -

learned Senior Government Pleader, who responded

by saying that if there is no approved Manager for

the School as of now, then necessary action, to

regularise the period of service of the petitioner

and to pay him salary, will be taken by the WPC 26098/19

competent Authorities.

9. When I consider the afore submissions, it

is indubitable that the Manager cannot now have

any case that the petitioner's suspension, during

the period when he was placed under the same, was

without any cause. In fact, Ext.P7 judgment of

this Court, which was invited by the Manager by

filing W.P(C)No.37486/2018, would establish it

beyond doubt that suspension was completely

without purpose since this Court specifically

directed reinstatement of the petitioner. It was

only thereafter the petitioner was reinstated on

18.01.2019 and obviously, therefore, the period

from 08.12.2017 to 17.01.2019 will certainly

deserve to be regularised and the petitioner

entitled to the entire salary during that period.

10. That said, since there is a dispute

whether there is any recognised Manager for the

School, I direct the DEO to verify whether Ext.P10

directions issued by him to the Manager have been WPC 26098/19

complied with; or, if there is no recognised

Manager for the school yet, then to take

appropriate action under the relevant provisions

of the KER to regularise the period of suspension

of the petitioner and to ensure that he is paid

his salary and other benefits during the period

from 08.12.2017 to 17.01.2019.

11. The afore exercise shall be completed by

the DEO as expeditiously as is possible, but not

later than two months from the date of receipt of

a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/-

RR                                  DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                JUDGE
 WPC 26098/19


               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26098/2019

PETITIONER ANNEXURE:

EXHIBIT P1          TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M-19/2017

DATED 8.12.2017 OF THE MANAGER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.19.17 DATED 22.12.2017 OF THE MANAGER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/9316/17 DATED 22.12.2017 OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/31174/2017 OF THE DDE, ERNAKULAM DATED 20.3.2018.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 5.4.2018.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.

(RT).NO.4592/2018/G.EDN. DATED 3.11.2018 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.37486/2018 DATED 7.11.2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEO DATED 5.2.2019.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEO DATED 9.4.2019.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B2/2824/2019 DATED 18.4.2019 OF THE DEO.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DEO DATED 15.7.2019.

WPC 26098/19

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.J1/164/19/G.EDN. DATED 28.6.2019 OF THE GOVERNMENT.