IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 33647 of 2003(E)
1. P.P.LAKSHMANAN, RETIRED P.D.TEACHER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR.
4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :30/11/2007
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN,J
=====================
W.P.(C).No.33647 of 2003
===========================
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner started service as a Primary Department
Teacher on 7.11.1964. As evidence by Ext.P1 he had worked as
a teacher-in-charge of the school from 27.8.1968 to 16.10.2969.
According to the petitioner by virtue of the same he is entitled to
the benefit of Ext.P3 order by which the Government directed
that teachers who were posted as teachers-in-charge on or
before 17.6.1969 and who by virtue of their district wise
seniority among P.D. Teachers and their qualifications were
entitled to promotion as Primary Headmaster on 1.6.1973.
Seeking this benefit the petitioner filed several representations
and ultimately by Ext.P7 dated 12.3.1996, the same was
rejected. The petitioner challenged Ext.P7 before this Court in
O.P.No.13062/96, in which by Ext.P8 judgment the Government
was directed to reconsider the matter with reference to Ext.P3
order. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P10 order was passed,
wherein claim of the petitioner was again rejected, on the
ground that the petitioner had not stated as to whether he was in
W.P.(C).No.33647/2003
2
receipt of supervision allowance during the period in question
and that at this distance of time it is not practical to verify
records in this regard. The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 on the
ground that the reasons mentioned therein are unsustainable.
According to him the fact that he had stated that he was
receiving supervision allowances is clear from Ext.P8 judgment,
wherein his averment that he had been in receipt of supervision
allowance is specifically quoted. He further submits that in view
of Ext.P9 certificate issued by the Headmistress of the School, it
is clear that he was in fact drawing supervisory allowance.
2. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand
submits that in view of the long passage of time, it is not possible
now to verify as to whether the petitioner was in fact receiving
the supervision allowance.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
Going by Ext.P10, the only ground on which the petitioner has
been denied benefit is that he has not stated whether he was in
receipt of supervision allowance during the period and that at
this distance of time it is not practical to verify records in this
regard. From a reading of Ext.P8, it is very clear that one of the
W.P.(C).No.33647/2003
3
contentions of the petitioner in that writ petition was that he had
been receiving supervisory allowance. Further, Ext.P9 would
also show that he was drawing supervisory allowances for the
months of October 1968, November 1968, December 1968 and
January 1969. There is no counter affidavit filed by the
respondents in this case. As such it cannot now be disputed that
by virtue of Exts.P8 and P9, the petitioner has sufficiently
disproved the reasons mentioned in Ext.P10 for denying him the
benefit of Ext.P3. Accordingly Ext.P10 is quashed and the first
respondent is directed to pass fresh orders directing grant of
benefits conferred by Ext.P3 to the petitioner since he had
sufficiently proved that he is entitled to the benefit conferred by
Ext.P3. Orders in this regard shall be passed and arrears, if any,
payable to the petitioner by virtue of that benefit including that
of retirement benefits accordingly calculated, shall be disbursed
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
dvs