Regina Joseph vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8058 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8058 Ker
Judgement Date : 29 June, 2022

Kerala High Court

Regina Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2022

WP(C) NO. 21142 OF 2022             1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
    WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
                     WP(C) NO. 21142 OF 2022


PETITIONER/S:

          REGINA JOSEPH
          D/O.K.P.JOSEPH, THALIKANDATHIL HOUSE,
          CHATHAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE 673601

          BY ADV PRAKASH M.P.


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
          GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

    2     DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
          KOZHIKODE 673 001.

    3     MANAGER,
          ST. THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL,
          THOTTUMUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673639.



          SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 21142 OF 2022                     2

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner contends that while she was working as High School

Assistant (Natural Science) in the St. Thomas High School, Thottumukkom, she

attained superannuation on 31.05.2021. For want of three days qualifying

service, the claim raised by the petitioner herein for pensionary benefits was

rejected by Exhibit P4 order. In the said circumstances, the 3rd respondent, who

is the Manager of the School preferred Exhibit P6 petition before the 1st

respondent, but the same stands rejected by Exhibit P8 order. The petitioner

asserts that before passing Exhibit P4 and P8 orders, the petitioner herein was

not afforded an opportunity of being heard. She contends that she has now

preferred Ext.P9 representation before the 1st respondent which is stated to be

pending. It is in the above backdrop that this writ petition is filed seeking to

quash Exhibits P4 and P8 and for consequential reliefs.

2. Sri. Prakash M.P., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would refer to the judgment of this Court in Abdurahiman Vs. State of Kerala

[2009 (2) KLT 105] and it is argued that the prior service rendered by the

teachers in aided schools is liable to be counted for pension. It is submitted that

before passing Ext.P8 order, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the

petitioner and the same cannot be sustained.

3. I have heard Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

In the nature of the order that I propose to pass, notice to the 3rd respondent is

dispensed with.

4. I find that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court and by

Exhibit P7 judgment, this Court had directed the 1st respondent to hear the

petitioner before orders are passed on the petition filed by the Manager. The

said judgment was rendered on 23.9.2021. However, it seems that while passing

orders on the petition filed by the Manager, no opportunity was afforded to the

petitioner to advance her contentions. I have no doubt in my mind that serious

prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as none of the contentions raised by

the petitioner was adverted to by the 1st respondent while rejecting the petition

filed by the Manager. I find that the petitioner has already approached the 1st

respondent and has filed Exhibit P9, which is stated to be pending. In that view

of the matter, it is only just and proper that the 1st respondent shall consider the

issue with notice to the petitioner as well as the Manager. Exhibit P8 order which

has been passed without notice to the petitioner will stand quashed for the

reasons above.

5. Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of by issuing the following

directions:

A) Exhibit P8 will stand quashed.

B) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up,

consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9, after affording

an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to

the petitioner herein or her authorised representative and the

3rd respondent.

C) 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.

D) 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 NS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21142/2022

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 W.P (C) 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

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.09.2021 IN W.P (C) NO. 19886/2021