Kerala High Court
T.I. Beena vs The State Of Kerala on 24 March, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:25121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 11479 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
T.I. BEENA
AGED 59 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL AZIZ,
LPSA (RETIRED), AIM UP SCHOOL, ERIYAD,
THRISSUR DISTRICT (RESIDING AT KURUDAMPARAMBIL,
NAYARAMBALAM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ), PIN - 680666.
BY ADVS.
V.A.MUHAMMED
M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT ANNEXE - II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014.
W.P.(C)No.11479 of 2025
:2:
2025:KER:25121
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRIC, PIN - 680121.
5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 679326.
6 THE MANAGER ,
AIM UP SCHOOL, ERIYAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680666.
7 THE HEADMISTRESS,
AIM UP SCHOOL, ERIYAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680666.
BY ADV.SMT. ANIMA M., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.11479 of 2025
:3:
2025:KER:25121
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2025
The petitioner retired from service while working as
LPSA in the School, on 31.05.2021. While the petitioner was
working as LPSA, she was placed under suspension by the
Manager on 23.02.2017. The AEO, Kodungallur, thereafter,
conducted a formal enquiry on 19.04.2017, without following
procedure and prepared a report.
2. Thereupon, the Manager has issued an order
dated 14.08.2017, awarding the punishment of compulsory
retirement on the petitioner. It was challenged before the DEO
and in turn, the DEO interfered with the order of the Manager
with the finding that the enquiry report itself is unsustainable. It
was challenged by the Manager before the Government and the
2025:KER:25121
Government as per G.O.(Rt) No.4612/18/G.Edn dated
05.11.2018 upheld the order of the DEO.
3. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated in
service on 18.01.2019. Later, she retired on 31.05.2021. The
specific case of the petitioner is that the disciplinary action was
initiated against her as she was not amenable to the demand of
the Manager to relinquish the post of Headmaster which would
arise on 01.06.2017 on the retirement of Smt.V. I. Fathima
Beevi, the then Headmaster. The Manager wanted to appoint
Smt.Zainabi as Headmistress. In the while, Smt.Sainabi was
promoted as Headmaster without a relinquishment from the
petitioner.
4. The petitioner states that the petitioner was
placed under suspension on 23.02.2017. The petitioner was
reinstated on 18.01.2019. So far, the suspension period of the
2025:KER:25121
petitioner is not regularised. Her retrial benefits in full are also
not disbursed so far. Now, she is paid only the PF amount and
provisional pension. Her full pension and gratuity are not
disbursed due to non-regularisation of her suspension period. In
short, the grievance of the petitioner is non-grant of promotion
to her, non-regularisation of her suspension period and also
non-disbursal of retrial benefits in full.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing
respondents 1 to 5.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that because
of the non-regularisation of the period of suspension, the retiral
benefits in full is not disbursed to the petitioner. The petitioner
would submit that there is no justification in not disbursing the
Terminal Benefits and pension of the petitioner in full.
2025:KER:25121
7. Be that as it may, I find that the petitioner has
approached the competent revisional authority filing Ext.P7
revision petition. In the facts of the case, it would be sufficient
that the 1st respondent considers Ext.P7 and takes appropriate
decision thereon in accordance with law within a reasonable
time.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the
1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 and pass orders thereon
within a period of four months, taking note of Ext.P6 also, after
giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
2025:KER:25121
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11479/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER
FURNISHED BY THE MANAGER VIDE NO.
2/2017 DATED 23.02.2017
Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
MANAGER VIDE ORDER NO. 1/2017 (2) DATED
14.08.2017
Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/7783/2017
K.DIS DATED 31.10.2017 OF THE DEO,
IRINJALAKUDA
Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.4612/18/G.EDN DATED 05.11.2018
Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. P.R.
21022204520 DATED 01.11.2022 ISSUED BY
THE SR. ACCOUNTS OFFICER OF THE
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL SANCTIONING THE
RETRIAL BENEFITS OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O ( RT)
NO.1360/2022/G.EDN. DATED 05.03.2022
Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
GOVERNMENT DATED 08.03.2025 (WITHOUT
EXHIBITS)
