IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33810 of 2007(Y)
1. K. LEELAMONY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
For Respondent :SRI.S.D.ASOKAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :03/06/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 33810 of 2007
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 3rd June, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner entered service in an aided school as an UPSA on
15-7-1986. She was promoted as HSA on 4-6-1990. Both
appointments were approved by the educational authorities. During
the academic year 2001-2002 on account of reduction of student
strength and consequent reduction of staff strength, the petitioner
was reverted as UPSA as per Exts.P1 and P2 orders. The petitioner is
aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents to grant her
protection of pay as applicable to HSA. According to the petitioner,
Ext. P3 Government Order governs the issue, which specifically
protects pay of High School Assistants reverted as UPSA, in the scale
of pay applicable to HSA. The petitioner therefore seeks the following
reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction calling for the records leading to and
culminating in Ext. P2 P4 and P7 and quash the same as arbitrary,
illegal and without jurisdiction.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the respondents to protect the pay of
the petitioner as HSA w.e.f. 5.6.2002 and disburse her all the
consequential benefits including the arrears as expeditiously as
possible”.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. The
contention therein is that Ext. P3 Government Order is not applicable
to the petitioner. It is applicable only to High School Assistants who
have been accommodated in a free vacancy of UPSA unoccupied by
anybody. According to 2nd respondent, when an UPSA is retrenched
for the purpose of accommodating the petitioner, the petitioner
cannot claim protection of pay as HSA. The learned Government
Pleader would also contend that the retrenched UPSA has been
W.P.C. No. 33810/07 -: 2 :-
deployed to other Government schools.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. Since the petitioner’s claim is based on Ext. P3, I shall
extract the same here:
“In the Govt. order read as 1st paper above it was, inter alia
clarified that protected HSAs would be allowed to be posted in
the arising vacancy of UPSA or LPSA in the same management
giving protection of salary. Now the Director of Public Instruction
has brought to the notice of Govt. that certain managements are
making fresh appointments in arising vacancies of UPSA/LPSA
even though there are protected has under the same management
awaiting absorption.
Govt. have examined the matter in detail and they now
order that whereever there are protected HSAs awaiting
absorption, the arising vacancies of UPSA/LPSA in the same
management should be filled up by those protected HSAs. They
will however be given protection of salary. Fresh appointments in
the arising vacancies of UPSAs/LPSAs will be approved only if the
above condition is also satisfied.”
I am of opinion that if on account of reduction in staff strength the
HSA has to be reverted and at the same time, has to be paid salary in
the scale of pay applicable to HSA, the very concept of reversion
would be meaningless. Ext. P3 is a special benefit given to HSAs who
have been appointed directly, who had been retrenched on account of
reduction in staff strength in the next arising vacancy of UPSA in the
same school and not where UPSAs promoted as HSAs are later on
reverted as UPSA, consequent on reduction of staff strength. An
UPSA promoted as HSA who is later reverted as UPSA on reduction in
staff strength, has a right to be accommodated as UPSA, if necessary,
by retrenching the junior-most UPSA. In such cases, such teacher
W.P.C. No. 33810/07 -: 3 :-
cannot claim protection of pay on the basis of Ext. P3. Ext. P3
envisages a totally different situation, which is not applicable to the
petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and
accordingly the same is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/