Kerala High Court
Indira S vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2021
WP(C) NO. 19917 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 2ND ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 19917 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
1 INDIRA S.,
AGED 36 YEARS, UPSA, KANARKA SENIOR BASIC SCHOOL,
MUTHANTHARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 102.
BY ADVS.
DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
JOBY D JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
ELPS, KOPPAM COMPOUND, PALAKKAD-678001.
4 MANAGER,
KANARKA SENIOR BASIC SCHOOL, MUTHANTHARA P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678102.
SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 19917 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that she was appointed as UPSA in a permanent
vacancy in the Kanarka Senior Basic School, Muthanthara on 03.06.2013. She
states that she has continuously worked till 31.05.2014 and thereafter, she
availed of leave in order to join her spouse working in the Indian Air Force. She
later rejoined the service on 1.2.2016. The petitioner contends that the 2nd
respondent has issued directions to the Manager to initiate disciplinary action
against the petitioner on the premise that she had not obtained sanction.
According to the petitioner, the Government had approved the leave as per
Ext.P2 order and her appointment had been approved by the AEO with effect
from 03.06.2013. However, her grievance is that the AEO had rejected the
disbursement of salary and other benefits due to the petitioner by Ext.P4 order.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P5 revision
petition before the 1st respondent. Though various other reliefs are sought, the
limited request of the petitioner is for issuance of directions to the 1st
respondent to consider Exhibit-P5 and pass orders expeditiously.
2. I have heard Dr.George Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. In view of the limited nature of the relief sought for, notice to the 4th
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) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider
and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5, 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 the 4th respondent.
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) 19917/2021
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, APPROVING
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED
10/05/2016.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT)
NO.1786/2020/G.EDN. DATED 01/06/2020.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AEO,
PALAKKAD, DATED 22/09/2020.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF AEO DATED
09/04/2021.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 11/08/2021.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL
