Geethu H Menon vs The Deputy Director Of Education
2021 Latest Caselaw 8366 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

        FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.23503 OF 2016(K)


PETITIONER:

               GEETHU H MENON, UPSA, BHAGAVATHY VILASAM HIGHER
               SECONDARY SCHOOL, NAYARAMBALAM, RESIDING AT
               THOTTATHIL HOUSE, METHALA P O, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR
               DISTRICT, PIN-680669

               SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

RESPONDENTS:

         1     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
               GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION,
               ERNAKULAM-682030.

         2     THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
               GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM-682016.

         3     THE MANAGER
               BHAGAVATHY VILASAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
               NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682509.

ADDL.    4     STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
               DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.(IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 4TH
               RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 21.03.2017 IN IA
               4722/2017).

               SMT.N.SHOBHA
               SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO
               SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD           ON
12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.23503 OF 2016(K)

                                    2


                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of March 2021

The petitioner, who is stated to be working as an Upper

Primary School Teacher in the "Bhagavathy Vilasam Higher

Secondary School", Nayarambalam - managed by the third

respondent - has approached this Court impugning Exts.P5

and P6, to the extent to which, it declines her salary and

emoluments during the period when she was illegally kept out

of service by the third respondent - Corporate Manager.

2. The petitioner asserts that her termination has already

been found to be illegal by this Court through Ext.P4 judgment

in W.P.(C) No.27245/2015; and consequentially that the

Corporate Educational Agency ought to have given her all

benefits, though they have reinstated her in terms of the

judgment. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Exts.P5 and P6,

to the extent to which, it denies her the salary and

emoluments during the period when she was kept out of

service illegally by the Corporate Manager, be set aside and

that the third respondent be directed to pay her the same

within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

3. Even when I hear Sri.O.D.Sivadas, the learned counsel WP(C).No.23503 OF 2016(K)

for the petitioner on the afore lines, the fact remains that in

Ext.P4, this Court had directed the Government to consider

the case of the petitioner both for reinstatement and for

payment of salary, after finding that her earlier termination

was illegal. The issue of reinstatement has already been

addressed by the Educational Agency by issuing Exts.P5 and

P6, but the question of payment of salary to the petitioner

during the period when she was kept out of service is yet to be

decided by the Government, as per the directions in Ext.P4

judgment.

4. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the Government

must now consider the payment of salary to the petitioner for

the period when she was illegally kept out of service by the

Corporate Manager and that appropriate orders thereon must

be issued, after hearing the Manager and the petitioner, within

the shortest time frame.

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed with a direction

to the 4th respondent to hear the petitioner and the Manager

of the School - either physically or through video conferencing

- and thus take a decision as to the payment of salary of the

petitioner between 22.08.2015 and 20.06.2016, when she was

kept out of service on account of the termination ordered by WP(C).No.23503 OF 2016(K)

the Manager.

The afore exercise shall be completed by the competent

Secretary of the Government as expeditiously as is possible,

and 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 without any avoidable delay, but not later

than two months thereafter.

                                        Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

Stu                                              JUDGE
 WP(C).No.23503 OF 2016(K)





                             APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

P1         TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD 1/6/2009 ISSUED BY THE
           DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

P2         TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 25/7/2015 ISSUED BY THE
           GOVERNMENT.

P3         TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 22/8/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
           RESPONDENT.

P4         TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 2/6/2016 IN WPC 27245/2015
           OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

P5         TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD 13/6/2016 ISSUED BY THE
           3RD RESPONDENT

P6         TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD 13/6/2016 ISSUED
           BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

P7         THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/01/2018 ISSUED BY
           THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION.

P8         THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 10/04/2018 ISSUED
           BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER.