Kerala High Court
Vishnu N.R vs State Of Kerala on 5 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943
RP NO. 557 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 24217/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION:
VISHNU N.R.
AGED 29 YEARS
KUTTIKKATTU VEEDU, PONNAMBI, VELLARADA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 505.
BY ADVS.
ASIF N
BINDU SREEDHAR
RAMABHADRAN K.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, STATUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
4 THE MANAGER
B.N.V.VOCATIONAL AND HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 027.
5 M.P.LAKSHMI
PLOT NO.46, ASWATHY GARDENS, AMBALATHARA, POONTHURA
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 026.
BY ADVS.
V.A.MUHAMMED
RP NO. 557 OF 2021 2
M.SAJJAD
APPU.P.S-GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 557 OF 2021 3
ORDER
This review petition is filed seeking a review of the judgment in as much
as the interim order for payment of salary to the petitioner had been omitted to
be taken note of while disposing of the writ petition. The review petitioner,
therefore, seeks a direction that the salary due to the petitioner should be
continued to be paid until orders are passed as directed in the judgment.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and
5 in the review petition that the revision petition had been heard by the
Director General of Education and an order had already been passed on
07.09.2021 rejecting the claim raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that the
petitioner had thereafter moved a revision petition before the Government,
which is pending. It is further submitted that the direction issued by this Court
on 17.12.2020 was specifically that since notice had been served to the Manager
and since he did not appear, the salary of the petitioner from 01.08.2020 would
be paid on condition that, if it is found ineligible to him later, the Manager
would be responsible for such payment under Chapter III Rule 7 of the KER. It is
submitted that thereafter, the direction of this court in the judgment under
review to consider the revision has been given effect to and an order has been
passed stating that the petitioner is not entitled to continue in the regular
vacancy after 31.05.2020. It is therefore submitted that in the above view of the
matter, it is only in case the revision petition submitted by the petitioner
succeeds that the petitioner would be entitled to salary for the period after
01.08.2020.
3. Having heard the learned counsel on all sides, I am of the opinion that
since the direction contained in the judgment under review had already been
given effect to and the revision has been rejected, the question of payment of
salary to the petitioner from 01.08.2020 would arise only if the revision petition
moved by the petitioner is successful or if the petitioner is found eligible for
continuance in service after 01.08.2020, in any proceedings before the statutory
authority or before this Court.
In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that no review of the
judgment is called for. In case the claim of the petitioner for continuance and
approval is found by the statutory authorities or by this Court in accordance
with law, the petitioner would definitely be entitled to salary for the said
period.
With these observations, this review petition is closed.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
SVP
