IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 28126 of 2002(W)
1. M.JAYASREE, U.P.S.A.A.M.U.P.SCHOOL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER,
3. THE MANAGER,
4. SMT.K.P.AMMINI,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :13/11/2008
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O.P. Nos. 28126 & 31209 of 2002
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 13th November, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
These two original petitions relate to conflicting claims by the
petitioners in the two cases. The short facts necessary for disposal of
the original petitions are as follows:
2. The 4th respondent (Smt. K.P. Ammini) while working as
UPSA in the 3rd respondent’s school applied for and was sanctioned
leave without allowance for five years from 1-3-1998 to 28-2-2003.
When two teachers who had been appointed successively in that leave
vacancy got regular appointment, the petitioner in O.P.No.
28126/2002 (Smt. M. Jayasree) was appointed in the resultant leave
vacancy on 9-1-2001. Smt. Jayasree’s appointment was for the
period from 9-1-2001 to 28-2-2003. Thereafter, Smt. Ammini wanted
to cancel the unavailed portion of her leave and to join duty on 20-4-
1991. Government directed the manager to appoint Smt. Ammini to
duty. The manager challenged the same before this Court in O.P.No.
15740/2001, which was dismissed by a learned Judge. The manager
challenged that judgment in W.A.No. 911/2002 in which Ext. P3
judgment was passed, wherein the claim of the manager was not
accepted. However, since Smt. Jayasree worked for the period and
Smt. Ammini did not, the Division Bench directed that the
appointment of Smt. Jayasree be approved for the period from 6-6-
2001 to 31-1-2002. However, Smt. Jayasree continued in service till
5-6-2002. Smt. Jayasree has filed O.P.No. 28126/2002 claiming salary
up to 5-6-2002. Smt. Ammini has filed O.P.No. 31209/2002 seeking a
direction to the Government and the A.E.O to direct the manager to
give all service and consequential benefits to her from the date of
rejoining duty, namely, 6-6-2001.
3. I have heard all parties.
4. I am spared of the task of considering the matter on merits
O.P.Nos.28126 & 31209/2002. -: 2 :-
since the claim of both parties are squarely covered by the Division
Bench decision in W.A.No. 911/2002. Paragraph 5 of that judgment
reads thus:
“5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the
strength of the stay order passed by this Court in O.P.No.
15740/2001 the 5th respondent was again appointed with effect
from 6-6-2001 in the same leave vacancy and she has been
continuing in service. Though the appointment order was
submitted for approval, the Educational Officer has not granted
approval. Obviously, the Educational Officer could not have
granted approval in view of Ext. P6 order of the Government and
the pendency of the original petition before this Court . Learned
counsel submits that it may be clarified that the dismissal of the
original petition or this Writ Appeal will not stand in the way of
granting approval to the appointment of the 5th respondent with
effect from 6-6-2001 till the disposal of the original petition.
Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
we are of the view that the request made by the learned counsel is
just and reasonable. The 4th respondent has not worked during the
said period and the 5th respondent has actually worked during the
said period on the basis of the appointment order issued by the
Manager on the strength of the stay order passed by this Court .
Hence, it is only just and reasonable that the appointment of the 5th
respondent is approved for the period from 6-6-2001 to 31-1-2002,
if the appointment was otherwise in order.”
When this Court directed approval of appointment of Smt. Jayasree
for the period from 6-6-2001 to 31-1-2002, Smt. Ammini cannot claim
salary in the same post for that period. Since this Court directed to
approve the appointment of Smt. Jayasree only for the period from 6-
6-2001 to 31-1-2002, she cannot claim salary for any period
subsequent to 31-1-2002. Therefore, Smt. Jayasree cannot claim
salary subsequent to 31-1-2002 and Smt. Ammini cannot claim
benefits for that period. If Smt. Ammini has any claim for the period
subsequent to 31-1-2002, she may take it up appropriately with the
O.P.Nos.28126 & 31209/2002. -: 3 :-
educational authorities, who shall consider and pass orders on the
same as expeditiously as possible.
The original petitions are disposed of as above
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/