IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3781 of 2005(A)
1. N.SATHIAN, TEACHER,
... Petitioner
2. V.M.PRADEEPAN, TEACHER,
3. R.VINOD KUMAR, TEACHER,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA- NOTICE FOR WHOM
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE MANAGER, IRINGOTH U.P.SCHOOL,
4. THE MANAGER,
5. THE MANAGER,
6. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :15/09/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
= = = = = = = = == = = = == = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 3781 OF 2005
= = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are specialist teachers working in various aided schools in
Kozhikode District, who commenced their services with effect from
28.12.1992, 8.6.1993 and 2.7.1992 respectively. In spite of several
representations and such other proceedings, their appointments were not
approved till Ext.P8 order was passed by the Government on 23.3.2001
wherein it was observed as follows:
” xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
3. Government have examined the
case in detail and are pleased to approve the
appointments of Sri. N. Sathyan as Drawing
teacher, Iringath U.P. School, Sri. V.M. Pradeepan
as Drawing teacher, Vilayatoor, Elampilad M.U.P.
School and Sri. Vinodkumar R. as Drawing teacher
in Muyipoth M.U.P. School in the posts that
existed in their respective schools.”
Projecting the further grievance that no consequential orders were passed
pursuant to Ext.P8, the petitioners approached this Court by filing O.P. No.
38308 of 2001, which culminated in Ext.P9 judgment, whereby the second
respondent was directed to pass consequential orders on the claim of the
petitioners for approval of their appointments on the basis of Ext.P8 order,
in accordance with law, within one month as specified. It was also made
WP(C) 3781/2005 2
clear by this Court that on approval of the appointment of the petitioners,
the salary due to them shall be released within one month thereafter. The
case of the petitioners is that pursuant to the above verdict of this Court,
consequential orders were passed by the second respondent, however,
granting approval with effect from 16.7.2001 and confining the benefit of
salary only with effect from that date as borne by Exts. P10 to P12
appointment orders. Even though the petitioners sought to challenge the
denial of salary with retrospective effect before the higher departmental
authorities, the same did not turn up fruitful as evident from Ext.P14 to P16,
which, in turn, are under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there
is absolutely no reason for restricting the benefit of salary to the petitioners
with effect from 16.7.2001 and that the petitioners are entitled to have the
salary with retrospective effect. Reliance is also sought to be placed on
Exts.P1 to P7 Government orders whereby such benefits are extended to
similarly situated persons. According to the petitioners, denial of the
benefits, to which they are entitled to, is an instance of clear
discrimination and bitter arbitrariness.
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
respondents submits, with reference to the contention in the counter
WP(C) 3781/2005 3
affidavit filed, that no posts were existing in the concerned schools to have
accommodated the petitioners, for giving approval with effect from
retrospective date and to have given salary accordingly. It is pointed out
that pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment, consequential orders were passed based
on Ext. P8 Government order, whereby supernumerary specialist teacher
posts were sanctioned in respect of staff fixation orders of the succeeding
year to the respective schools and that the salary has been disbursed to the
petitioners with effect from 16.7.2001. It is also stated that the continuation
of the petitioners in the schools earlier was quite unauthorized and that the
manager of the aided school had appointed the petitioners in irregular posts
and hence their appointments cannot be approved with retrospective effect.
4. True, the petitioners might have been continuing as aforesaid,
though such posts were not sanctioned and as such salary cannot be
claimed as a matter of right. But the consequential orders (Exts. P10 to
P12) passed by the concerned authorities (on the basis of Ext.P8 order
passed by the Government deciding to approve the appointment) do not
give any plausible explanation, as apparent from the records, to sustain the
stand taken by the concerned respondents in limiting the benefit of salary to
be with effect from 16.7.2001, in spite of the admitted fact that the
petitioners were continuing in the school with effect from 1992-93. When
WP(C) 3781/2005 4
reference is made in Exts.P10 to P12 that the approval was given with effect
from 16.7.2001 (referring Government vide Ext.P8 order), this Court does
not find any such observation stated as made by the Government in Ext.P8
order). It was the scope of the said order ie. Ext.P8, which was examined
by this Court while passing Ext.P9 judgment, whereby the second
respondent was directed to pass consequential orders making it clear that
the salary shall be disbursed accordingly. Similarly, absolutely nothing is
forthcoming from the part of the respondents with regard to the course
pursued by the Government/authorities in respect of other persons similarly
situated like the petitioners, giving the benefit of salary with retrospective
effect as borne out by Exts.P1 to P7; but for stating that it was done only as
a special case on “humanitarian consideration”. The so called
“humanitarian consideration” as projected by the learned Government
Pleader, why happened to be not extended to the petitioners or whether
there is anything ‘inhuman’ in their case, is not discernible from the
materials on record. As it stands so, the reason for treating the petitioners,
placing them on a different pedestal than the beneficiaries of Exts. P1 to P7,
has necessarily to be examined by the Government, more so when Ext.P8
order granting approval, after taking note of the service of the petitioners
from 1992-93 stipulates to have them accommodated in the posts “existed”
WP(C) 3781/2005 5
in the concerned schools and obviously not with reference to any future
vacancy.
5. In the above circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside and
the first respondent is directed to consider the matter with regard to the
extent of salary payable to the petitioners pursuant to Ext.P8 order granting
approval, in the light of the contents of Ext.P9 judgment and also in the
light of Exts. P1 to P7 orders granting benefits retrospectively to some
others who are stated as similarly situated. Proceedings in this regard shall
be finalised, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the first respondent finds
that any amount is liable to be paid to the petitioners as above, the same
shall be caused to be disbursed within a further period of two months
thereafter.
The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. There will be no
order as to costs.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
(JUDGE)
KNC/-