IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30815 of 2006(R)
1. THE PANAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION),
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER,
4. REENA DAS Y.G.,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.P.SHINOD
For Respondent :SRI.D.KISHORE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :25/06/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) 30815 OF 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P2 order
of the Kerala Lok Ayukta dated 2.9.2006. The 4th respondent
herein was appointed through the Public Service Commission
in the Panchayath UP School, Attinpuram under the
Management of the petitioner as a Lower Primary School
Assistant. Later, there occurred a reduction of staff strength
for want of accommodation pursuant to the certification of
certain class rooms as unfit as per Ext.P3. According to the 4th
respondent he was retrenched for the aforesaid reason. But,
according to the petitioner the 4th respondent was retrenched
from service on account of a direction of this court in WA
270/2005 and not based on Ext.P3 order. He had actually
worked therein from 17.1.2005 to 25.10.2005. The petitioner
had approached the Kerala Lok Ayukta through Ext.P1
claiming salary for the aforesaid period viz., from 15.7.2005 to
25.10.2005. As per Ext.P2 the Kerala Lok Ayukta directed the
petitioner to pay the salary and allowances due to the 4th
respondent for the period from 15.7.2005 to 25.10.2005 and
to file an action taken before the said forum. It was
Wpc 30815/2006 2
challenging Ext.P2 order that this writ petition has been filed.
2. The petitioner is assailing Ext.P2 on the specific
ground that Kerala Lok Ayukta is lacking jurisdiction to
entertain the issue involved in the case in the light of Section 8
(1) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. When this matter is taken up
today, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent also
conceded the said legal position. However, the learned counsel
sought permission to enable the petitioner to pursue with the
matter before appropriate forum.
In the circumstances, Ext.P2 is set aside. However, it will
be open to the 4th respondent to pursue her remedies for
redressing her grievances involved in this case in appropriate
proceedings. It is made clear that all the contentions available
to both the parties are left open.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE
jma
//true copy//
P.A to Judge