Kerala High Court
Bincy Mathew vs The State Of Kerala on 23 November, 2021
WP(C) NO. 26095 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 26095 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
BINCY MATHEW
AGED 40 YEARS
WIFE OF REV.JACOB PAPPACHAN,
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (MALAYALAM),
CATHOLICATE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.
BY ADVS.
V.A.MUHAMMED
M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT ANNEXE II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690101.
4 THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
CATHOLICATE & M D SCHOOLS, DEVALOKAM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686038.
5 THE PRINCIPAL
CATHOLICATE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.
WP(C) NO. 26095 OF 2021 2
SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 26095 OF 2021 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that she was appointed as HST (Malayalam) on
13.06.2008 in the Catholicate Higher Secondary School in a regular vacancy.
However, the approval was granted only for the period from 13.06.2008 to
31.03.2009 on a daily wage basis and on regular scale of pay from 01.06.2009
onwards. The petitioner contends that the appointment is liable to be
approved on a scale of pay basis in view of the law laid down by the Apex
Count in State of Kerala v Sneha Cherian (2013(1) KLT 755). Seeking the
benefits due to the petitioner, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P4
revision petition before the Government.
2. When this matter came up for consideration, Sri. M.Sajjad, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the
pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner would be satisfied if directions
are issued to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4
revision petition within a timeframe and with due notice.
3. I have heard Sri. Bijoy Chandran, the learned Senior Government
Pleader as well.
4. In view of the nature of the order that I propose to pass, notice
to the respondents 4 and 5 is dispensed with.
5. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ
petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and
circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of at
the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:
a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider
and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 revision petition as per
procedure and in adherence to the provisions of law, after
affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or
virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorised representative
as well as respondents 4 and 5.
b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any
event, within a period of three months from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment.
c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ
petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent
for further action.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
IAP
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26095/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 13.06.2008.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2013
(1) KHC 660 DECIDED ON 22.02.2013.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.B6/141/2018/K.DIS. DATED 24.02.2018.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED
30.10.2021 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS).
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL
LU
