IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 10852 of 2007(P)
1. O.BINDU, AGED 37 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE HEADMISTRESS, THRITHALA HIGH
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :10/07/2007
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.10852 OF 2007
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2007
JUDGMENT
Petitioner had availed of leave without allowance to pursue
her study for B.Ed. Course while she was working as an Upper
Primary School Assistant. Petitioner was sanctioned leave for 179
days from 4.6.1996 to 29.11.1996 with permission to suffix
holidays on 30.11.1996 and 1.12.1996.
2. According to the petitioner, leave was sanctioned by the
Government as revealed from Ext.P1. The period of leave was
counted for sanction of Grade Promotions, increments, etc. She
was thereafter promoted as High School Assistant in 2003.
However, the grievance of the petitioner is that she has been
denied the benefits of 2006 pay revision on the ground that the
period of leave without allowances cannot be counted for
increments and other service benefits.
3. Petitioner’s application for option to come over to the
revised scale pursuant to 2006 Pay revision with effect from
1.7.2006 was returned along with Ext.P4 stating that petitioner
would not be entitled to get the service benefits for the period
availed of by her as leave without allowance to pursue her studies.
W.P.(C)No.10852 OF 2007
:: 2 ::
4. Learned counsel submits that the issue is squarely
covered in favour of the petitioner in view of the judgments of this
court in W.P.(C)No.26782/05 as well as in Deepika V. State of
Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 71]. The grievance of the petitioner is
that the impugned order has been issued without adverting to the
dictum laid down by this Court in the above two judgments.
5. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P4 is quashed.
The first respondent shall reconsider the matter in the light of the
two judgments referred to above. This shall be done as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after
affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to be heard.
Petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment along
with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for
compliance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
jes