Kerala High Court
Raimole Kurian vs The State Of Kerala on 10 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.7949 OF 2019(P)
PETITIONER:
RAIMOLE KURIAN, W/O. BABU ABRAHAM, KOOTTAPLAKKIL
HOUSE, THIRUMARAYOOR P.O, ARAKKUNNAM (VIA) ERNAKULAM-
682 313 (HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (HINDI),
ST.PHILOMINA'S HIGH SCHOOL, THIRUVANIYOOR).
SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION)
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,ERNAKULAM.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA.
5 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALUVA.
6 THE CORPORATE MANAGER
CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOLS, DIOCESE OF
MUVATTUPUZHA, KEEZHILLAM, ERNAKULAM-683 541
7 THE HEAD MISTRESS,
ST. PHILOMINA'S HIGH SCHOOL, THIRUVANIYOOR.
SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
SRI.JESTIN MATHEW-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.7949 OF 2019(P)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of March 2021
The petitioner, who is working as a High School Teacher
in Hindi in "St.Philomina's High School", Thiruvaniyoor -
managed by the 6th respondent - Corporate Manager, has
approached this Court impugning Ext.P22 order, to the extent
to which, she has been directed to be granted only notional
appointment during the period between 14.12.2014 and
24.07.2015, without being eligible for any monetary benefits.
2. The petitioner says that Ext.P22 order is illegal, since
the Government has already found therein that though she was
entitled to be appointed during this period, she had not been
allowed to work by the corporate Manager and kept out of
service illegally. The petitioner asserts that the rationale
adopted by the Government in Ext.P22 is fallacious because,
on one hand, they admit that she had been kept out of service
illegally by the Manager; while on the other, they say that she
is not entitled to salary, because she did not work during the
period in question.
WP(C).No.7949 OF 2019(P)
3. Sri.S.Subhash Chand, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, explains his client's case by saying that she
commenced regular continuous service as a High School
Teacher from 02.06.2003 and was approved through Ext.P3
order. He submitted that prior to this appointment, the
petitioner had approved service in short term vacancies, as is
evident from Exts.P1 and P2; and that while she was so
working in the "St.Paul's High School", Veliyanad, she was
reverted to the post of Upper Primary School Assistant with
effect from 15.07.2010, alleging want of vacancies, as is clear
from Ext.P4. He says that later, through Exts.P5 and P7, his
client was accommodated in long leave vacancies of High
School Teacher, but was retrenched with effect from
14.12.2014 and kept out of service till 25.07.2015; while her
juniors were allowed to continue in other schools under the
same Corporate agency, which she was not aware at the
relevant time.
4. Sri.Subhash Chand argues that his client's
retrenchment in such manner was contrary to Rule 51A of
Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) and
therefore, that the Government has rightly found that this was
WP(C).No.7949 OF 2019(P)
illegal and consequently, that she is entitled to be appointed
during the period when she was kept out of service.
5. Sri.Subhash Chand contends that, therefore, it was a
necessary corollary that the Government should have then
ordered payment of salary to her, when it was affirmatively
found that her removal from service was illegal; but that, in
Ext.P22, she has been granted such benefit only notionally,
without any monetary benefits flowing from it. Sri.Subhash
Chand, therefore, prays that Ext.P22, to such extant, be set
aside and the Government be directed to pay salary to his
client during the period in question without any further delay.
6. In response, the learned counsel appearing for the
Corporate Manager, Sri.Tony Kannanthanam, submitted that
the petitioner had been kept out of service during the period
in question only for want of vacancies and therefore, that no
fault can be attributed to his client in having done so. He
submitted that, in any event of the matter, the Government
themselves have found that no error can be attributed to his
client because, through Ext.P23 - which is the subsequent
order issued by them - a decision has been validly recorded
that the Manager cannot be proceeded against for having paid
WP(C).No.7949 OF 2019(P)
salary to Sri.Lijo Joseph, who had worked during the period
from 03.06.2013 to 13.12.2014. The learned counsel,
therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
7. The learned Government Pleader - Sri.Justin Mathew,
submitted that Ext.P22 is irreproachable because all the
relevant facts and inputs had been considered by the
Government, thus allowing the petitioner's plea for being
appointed between 14.12.2014 and 24.07.2015. He submitted
that the petitioner cannot have any further grievance and
added that her pay for the said period has been declined only
because she did not work in the school during it. He,
therefore, prayed that Ext.P22 be left uninterdicted and that
this writ petition be dismissed.
8. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without
doubt that in Ext.P22, the Government have unequivocally
found that the petitioner's case against her retrenchment from
service on 14.12.2014 was worthy and she has thus been
granted appointment between 14.12.2014 and 24.07.2015.
This can only mean that the Government has acceded to her
contention that she was retrenched illegally and that the
period during which she was kept for retrenchment was liable
WP(C).No.7949 OF 2019(P)
to be reckoned for service benefits. However, Ext.P22 only
does not say why the monetary benefits during this period has
been declined, except saying that the petitioner had not
worked during it. Obviously, when the petitioner had been
retrenched by the Manager and kept out of service, it was
impossible for her to have worked during the said period; and
it is, therefore, inscrutable as to how the Government now
orders that the petitioner shall not be paid salary between
14.12.2014 and 24.07.2015 when she had been kept out of
service by the Manager. This is certainly speaking in
contradictions since, on one hand, the Government admits that
the petitioner ought not to have been retrenched; while on the
other, further penalises her by denying her monetary benefits.
9. In the afore circumstances, I cannot find favour with
Ext.P22 order and am certain that the competent Authorities
must issue appropriate orders granting her salary for the
period between 14.12.2014 and 24.07.2015, as if she had
worked in the school.
10. Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and set aside
Ext.P22, to the extent to which it has only granted notional
appointment to the petitioner between 14.12.2014 and
WP(C).No.7949 OF 2019(P)
24.07.2015; with a consequential direction to the Government
to issue appropriate orders granting all benefits during the
said period to the petitioner, as if she had been in service.
The afore orders shall be issued by the Government as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the
resultant benefits shall be disbursed to her within a period of
one month thereafter.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Stu JUDGE
WP(C).No.7949 OF 2019(P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER
DATED 12/11/2001 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER
OF THE PETITIONER DATED 18/11/2002
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER
OF THE PETITIONER DATED 2.6.2003
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER
DATED 15/7/2010
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER
DATED 4/1/2011
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2013 OF
RESPONDENT NO.2
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/8/2015 OF
RESPONDENT NO. 6.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/10/2013 OF
RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER
ON WHICH THE ORDER OF APPROVAL DATED
30/7/2016 OF RESPONDENT NO. 4 IS ENDORSED.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/7/2015
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 6.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
15/12/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.1.2016
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.
659 OF 2016 (F)
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/4/2016
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
WP(C).No.7949 OF 2019(P)
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY REVISION
PETITION DATED 27/4/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTED 23.5.2016
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.
17948 OF 2016 (p)
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
18/2/2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.3.2017
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.
10210 OF 2017
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING GO(RT) NO.
3404/2017/G.EDN. DATED 27/9/2017
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED APPOINTMENT ORDER
AND APPROVED BY RESPONDENT NO. 5.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT BY PROMOTION
ORDER DATED 1.6.2017 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
NO.6.
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1/3/2018
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.
33881 OF 2017 .
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/2/2019
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1
EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING GO
NO.710/2020/G.EDN. DATED 11.02.2020 PASSED
BY RESPONDENT NO.1.
