High Court Kerala High Court

Chethana C.V. vs State Of Kerala on 16 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Chethana C.V. vs State Of Kerala on 16 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36285 of 2007(T)


1. CHETHANA C.V., AGED 31, D/O.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

3. ST.AUGUSTINE'S HIGH SCHOOL,

4. HEAD MASTER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.AHZAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :16/06/2008

 O R D E R
                               K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                       --------------------------------------------
                       W.P.(C) NO. 36285 OF 2007 T
                       --------------------------------------------
                       Dated this the 16th June, 2008

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner was appointed as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher in

St.Augustine’s High School, Murukkumpuzha, as per Ext.P1 order of

appointment dated 8.7.2005. It is stated that the appointment of the

petitioner was approved by the District Educational Officer for the period

from 8.7.2005 to 10.10.2008 or till the vacancy exists which ever is earlier.

It is further stated that the petitioner joined the School on 8.7.2005. She

received salary from 8.7.2005 to March, 2006.

2. It would appear that there was a dispute regarding management

between two persons. Ext.P2 memo dated 30.5.2006 was issued by the

District Educational Officer, Thiruvananthapuram to the Headmaster

stating that the High Court had directed to maintain status quo as on

6.3.2006 in view of the dispute regarding managership. Therefore, the

Headmaster was directed to withhold the payment of salary in respect of

the petitioner until further orders. It is stated that now the management

dispute is over as per the orders passed by the Educational Authorities as

directed in Ext.P4 judgment.

3. The petitioner is not paid salary from March, 2006. She is

W.P.(C) NO.36285 OF 2007

:: 2 ::

entitled to get salary for the period she was worked. No counter affidavit

is filed in the case. Entitlement of the petitioner to get salary is not

disputed. There is no order prohibiting payment of salary to the petitioner.

4. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for the issue of a writ of

mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner for

the period she worked in the third respondent School. I am of the view

that the petitioner is entitled to get the relief prayed for in the Writ Petition.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Headmaster shall

prepare the salary bill for the salary due to the petitioner and submit

before the District Educational Officer, the second respondent, within a

period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The District Educational Officer shall counter-sign the bill promptly for the

immediate disbursement of the salary to the petitioner.

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge

ahz/