IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2030 of 2009()
1. BULA FATHIMA LOPEZ,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. HEADMISTREES,
6. SHRI.NAVEEN CHRISTOPHER,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :16/09/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A.No.2030 of 2009
------------------------------
Dated this, the 16th day of September, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The first respondent herein has filed the Writ
Petition challenging Ext.P5 order of the Deputy Director of
Education dated 9.4.2007 and Ext.P6 order of the said officer,
dated 3.5.2007. The learned Single Judge quashed those
orders. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal is
preferred by the sixth respondent in the Writ Petition. The brief
facts of the case are the following:
2. The appellant was working as a Clerk in the first
respondent’s/writ petitioner’s school. She applied for voluntary
retirement from service with effect from 1.9.2006. The said
motion was sanctioned by the Deputy Director of Education in
consultation with the Accountant General by Ext.P3
communication dated 25.12.2006. Pursuant to that, she retired
from service with effect from 1.9.2006 and has refunded the
W.A.No.2030 of 2009:
– 2 –
salary received by her after 1.9.2006. While so, the Deputy
Director of Education suo motu took action to recall the sanction
granted for voluntary retirement of the appellant. Apparently,
this was done by the Deputy Director of Education on being
alerted by the Headmaster of the School that the appellant owes
substantial amounts to several persons and the outstanding
liabilities are more than the admissible pensionary benefits.
Pending further action, the Deputy Director of Education issued
Ext.P5 communication to the Headmaster not to proceed with
Ext.P3 order dated 25.12.2006 granting sanction to the request
for voluntary retirement of the appellant. It was followed by
Ext.P6 order dated 3.5.2007, as per which the sanction granted
as per Ext.P3 was recalled by the Deputy Director of Education.
The learned Single Judge quashed those orders and directed the
District Educational Officer to consider the approval of the
appointment of the substitute posted in the place of the
appellant.
3. In this appeal, the appellant mainly canvassed for
a direction to pay her the salary for the period she has actually
W.A.No.2030 of 2009:
– 3 –
worked pursuant to Ext.P6. According to her, she rejoined duty
on 22.5.2007 and continued in service up to 18.8.2009, i.e. the
date on which the writ petition was disposed of. The appellant
submits that her claim is supported by the counter affidavit filed
by the D.E.O. in this case.
4. The above submission of the appellant is seriously
disputed by the first respondent/Manager and the sixth
respondent, Navin Christopher, who was appointed in the place
of the appellant. According to them, the sixth respondent
joined duty on 15.3.2007 and was continuously working since
then.
5. The learned Single Judge has declined to pass any
order for payment of salary for the period the appellant has
claimed to have actually worked. That part of the judgment is
under challenge in this appeal.
6. We agree with the learned Single Judge that
W.A.No.2030 of 2009:
– 4 –
Ext.P6 was passed without jurisdiction. The ground taken for
recalling that order, even assuming that the third respondent
has such power, was totally irrelevant. So, on the strength of
an invalid order, no one can claim any benefit. At any rate,
public funds cannot be paid to the appellant. But, if she had
any claim for damages against the Manager, on the ground that
she was made to work by him without paying salary, she will be
free to pursue the same before appropriate forum.
Subject to that observation, the Writ Appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.
Sd/-
P. Bhavadasan,
Judge.
DK.
(True copy)