IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10448 of 2008(R)
1. K.N.SADANANDAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E)
4. THE PRINCIPAL
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :15/02/2010
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 10448 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 15th day of February, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Fixation of pay of the petitioner duly sanctioned by the
educational officer concerned was objected to by the Accountant
General. The Government concurred with the Accountant General.
Challenging the audit objection, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No.
30954/2004 and this Court, by judgment dated 2-8-2007, directed
the Government to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh on the
basis of Ext. P5 circular dated 29-7-2006. Pursuant thereto, the
Government rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that
Ext. P5 was cancelled by Ext. P8 order. But the petitioner points out
that Ext. P8 was issued on 26-12-2007, subsequent to the judgment of
this Court . As such, Ext. P8 cannot govern the petitioner’s case.
According to the petitioner, as such, the rejection of the claim on the
basis of Ext. P8, which came into being subsequent to the judgment
of this Court, is improper. However, for the present, the petitioner
would be satisfied if the petitioner’s claim is considered in accordance
with Ext. P11 order dated 18-1-2010 passed by the Government in
respect of the subject matter in question.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.
3. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition
with a direction to the 1st respondent to re-consider the petitioner’s
case in the light of Ext. P11 order dated 18-1-2010 as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a
W.P.C. No. 10448/2008. -: 2 :-
copy of this judgment. The contention of the petitioner regarding
validity of the impugned orders is left open to be agitated, if necessity
arises after reconsideration as directed above.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/