Amala Roshni vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 7293 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

    TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.5330 OF 2021(M)


PETITIONER:

                AMALA ROSHNI,
                AGED 41 YEARS
                HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (SOCIAL SCIENCE),
                BVM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
                KALPARAMBU,THRISSUR-680121.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.K.T.THOMAS
                SHRI.MATHEW BOB KURIAN

RESPONDENT/S:

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

      2         THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
                DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
                JAGATHY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.

      3         THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
                MALA,THRISSUR-680732.

      4         THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
                VALAPPAD,THRISSUR-680567.

      5         THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
                CHALAKUDY,THRISSUR-680307.

      6         THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
                CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY,
                DIOCESE OF IRINJALAKUDA,
                IRINJALAKUDA-680121.


                SR GP T RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.5330 OF 2021

                                  2




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2nd day of March 2021

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner is entitled to get salary as Junior Sanskrit Teacher (PT) for the period from 05.06.2006 to 31.05.2007 in RC UP School, Kaippamangalam and from 01.06.2007 to 31.05.2009 in St.Antony's UP School, Perambra.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 4 and 5 to sanction and disburse the salary due to the petitioner as Junior Sanskrit Teacher (PT) for the period from 05.06.2006 to 31.05.2007 in RC UP School, Kaippamangalam and from 01.06.2007 to 31.05.2009 in St. Antony's UP School, Perambra.

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to fix the salary of the petitioner w.e.f 05.06.2006 to 31.05.2009 in terms of Pay Revision Order, 2004 expeditiously, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2 respondent to consider nd

and pass orders on Ext.P6 appeal petition, after hearing the petitioner, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

WP(C).No.5330 OF 2021

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 as Junior Sanskrit Teacher (Part

Time) w.e.f 01.06.2005 in St.Mary's U.P.School, Karoor, in a

promotion vacancy and the appointment was approved on

31.03.2012, more than 7 years later. In the meanwhile, the

Manager appointed the petitioner with effect from 05.06.2006 to

31.05.2007 in a promotion vacancy in RC UP School,

Kaippamangalam and from 01.06.2007 to 31.05.2009 in St.

Antony's UP School, Perambra under same management.

However, the AEO, Valappad returned the proposal for approval

of appointment w.e.f 05.06.2006 stating that the earlier

appointment from 01.06.2005 is already approved. However,

petitioner is denied salary for the period from 05.06.2006 to

31.05.2009 and pay is fixed without taking note of Pay Revision

2004.

4. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 appeal WP(C).No.5330 OF 2021

as against Ext.P5 and seeks a consideration of the same in

accordance with law. Though the learned Government Pleader

submits that an appeal in the nature of Ext.P6 is not warranted

and that all that is required is a reply to Ext.P5, I am of the

opinion that since the issue involves release of salary to the

petitioner w.e.f 05.06.2006 onwards, the matter requires a

consideration at the hands of the DGE taking note of the

admitted factual situation.

In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to

the 2nd respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on Ext.P6

appeal preferred by the petitioner and to pass orders on the

same after hearing the petitioner as well as the Corporate

Manager within a period of two months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

ssa WP(C).No.5330 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01.06.2005 ALONGWITH PROCEEDINGS DATED 31.03.2012 OF 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 05.06.2006 ISSUED BY R6, MANAGER

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 06.12.2018 ISSUED BY AEO,VALAPPAD

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 16.09.2019 ISSUED BY AEO,MALA

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 30.11.2019 ISSUED BY AEO,MALA

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 25.11.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.