IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18947 of 2008(E)
1. V.MANJULA DEVI, JUNIOR HINDI TEACHER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE HEAD MASTER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent :SRI.V.B.RAMANUNNI MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :28/07/2008
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 18947 OF 2008 E
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th July, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed as full time lower grade Hindi Teacher
from 19.11.2001 to 26.3.2002 as a leave substitute in Narayana
Vidhyalaya Aided Upper Primary School, Panamanna, Palakkad District.
That appointment was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer.
Later, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Hindi Teacher (full time)
from 15.7.2002 onwards. That appointment was also approved by the
Assistant Educational Officer with effect from 15.7.2002. It is stated that
on 14.7.2004, the petitioner was retrenched due to the division fall. It is
submitted that again the petitioner was appointed and thereafter
retrenched permanently on 14.7.2006.
2. The petitioner was not paid salary for the period from 15.7.2002
to 31.12.2003 on the basis of Ext.P2 Government Order dated 15.6.2004,
which states that salary of the newly appointed teachers up to 31.12.2003
will be credited to the Provident Fund Account and that only salary for the
period from 1.1.2004 will be paid in cash. The grievance of the petitioner
is that the amount is not credited to the Provident Fund Account since no
such account was opened. But, at the same time, salary was not paid in
cash also. It is submitted that the petitioner could not have a Provident
W.P.(C) NO.18947 OF 2008
:: 2 ::
Fund Account since the petitioner did not get regular appointment. This
statement is not seen denied by the respondents.
3. The petitioner made a request as per Ext.P3 and Ext.P4
representations to pay her salary for the aforesaid period. The first
respondent disposed of Ext.P4 representation as per Ext.P5 order dated
24.10.2007, wherein it is stated that as per the existing Rules/Orders,
there is no provision to release the salary in cash up to 31.12.2003.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the salary payable till
31.12.2003, which was directed to be credited to the Provident fund
Account as per Ext.P2 Government Order, can be withdrawn by the
teachers from 1.6.2008 onwards as per G.O.(P)No.229/05/Gl.Edn., dated
20.7.2005. This position is also not disputed.
4. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:
“a) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating
to Ext.P2 and P5 and quash the same to the extent
they deny salary to the petitioner for the period from
15/7/02 to 31/12/03 which, is approved service as per
Ext.P1.
b) Direct the respondents to disburse salary to the
petitioner in cash from 15/7/02 to 31/12/03, which is
approved service as per Ext.P1, forth with.
c) To grant such other further reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit just to proper in the
circumstances of the case; and
d) Award costs of this petition."
W.P.(C) NO.18947 OF 2008
:: 3 ::
5. The stand taken by the second respondent in paragraph 2 of
the the counter affidavit is that the salary due to the petitioner for the
period from 15.7.2002 to 31.12.2003 was reserved to be credited in the
Provident Fund Account proposed to be opened by the petitioner in
compliance with Ext.P2 Government Order. It is also stated that the
educational authorities have not denied the salary of the petitioner. But
payment of the salary was deferred as per the Government Order. The
counter affidavit would also indicate that the petitioner is a Rule 51A
claimant and, therefore, she is eligible for appointment in the above
School again. It would appear that this submission is made in order to
contend that the arrears of salary will be paid only after the petitioner gets
appointment as per the preferential claim under Rule 51A. The stand
taken by the respondents is unsustainable. Ext.P5 order also is
unsustainable in view of G.O.(P) No.229/05/Gl.Edn. Dated 20.7.2005.
Therefore, I quash Ext.P5. There will be a direction to the second
respondent to disburse the salary to the petitioner in cash, for the period
from 15.7.2002 to 31.12.2003, within a period of one month. The third
respondent shall submit necessary bills for the same expeditiously.
The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/