Kerala High Court
Regina Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2021
WP(C) NO. 19886 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 19886 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
REGINA JOSEPH
D/O K.P.JOSEPH,
THALIKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHATHAMANGALAM,
KOZHIKODE-673601.
BY ADV M.P.PRAKASH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
KOZHIKODE-673001.
3 MANAGER
ST.THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL, THOTTUMUKKOM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673639.
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 19886 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that she had served as a High School Assistant
(Natural Science) during the period from 4.6.2012 to 31.5.2021 on which day,
she attains superannuation. Her grievance is that her claim for pensionary
benefits was rejected by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P4 order for want of
three days qualifying service and also on the ground that her prior service
cannot be reckoned for the purpose of pension. The petitioner states that the
classification based on a cut off date is arbitrary and violative of her rights
guaranteed under the constitution. In the said circumstances, the 3rd
respondent is stated to have preferred Ext.P6 application before the 1st
respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that no orders have been
passed on Ext.P6 till date. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is
before this Court seeking directions.
2. Sri.Prakash M.P., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
submitted that the limited request of the petitioner is for an expeditious
consideration and disposal of Exhibit-P6 application submitted before the 1st
respondent with due notice.
3. I have heard Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government
Pleader. In view of the order that I propose to pass, notice to the 3rd
respondent is dispensed with.
4. 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) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assertions made
in the application, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to
take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6, after
affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or
virtually, to the 3rd respondent and the petitioner.
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
DSV
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19886/2021
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED
03.08.1990.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE EVIDENCING
SERVICE FROM JULY 1999 TO JULY 2009.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.04.2012
IN WPC NO.1397/2012.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.02.2021 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.401/2019/F IN
DATED 28.10.2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
30.03.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE STATE GOVERNMENT.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL
