IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 10708 of 2007(Y)
1. P.K.ABDURAHIMAN, HAS (ARABIC),
... Petitioner
2. V.BALAN, SANSKRIT TEACHER,
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER,
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.NARAYANAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :06/06/2007
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.10708 OF 2007
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2007
JUDGMENT
Petitioner no.1 is working as High School Assistant
(Arabic) in an aided school whereas petitioner no.2 is a
Sanskrit teacher in an Upper Primary school. Their common
grievance is that they have been asked to repay the so called
excess salary and allowances drawn by them pursuant to pay
fixation orders in terms of Exts.P1 and P2. It is not in dispute
that pay of the petitioners was revised and re-fixed when
anomaly was noticed that their juniors were placed on a
higher scale.
2. I do not propose to deal with the issue at length in
view of the fact that circular bearing No.59151/J2/2000/
Gen.Edn., has been quashed by this court in Ext.P5 judgment.
In Ext.P6 judgment, a learned Single Judge of this court had
held that the said circular could not have the effect of
amending the notification issued by the Government and that
too with retrospective effect. It was further held that the
W.P.(C)No.10708 OF 2007
:: 2 ::
restrictive clause in the said circular contrary to Rule 37 of
Chapter XIV A KER cannot have any legal force.
3. In the statement filed by respondent no.2, it is
admitted that Exts.P3 and P4 had been issued on the basis of
the circular referred to above. It is seen admitted by
respondent no.2 that petitioner no.1 was senior to
Sri.P.Krishnakumar. It is further conceded that the benefit of
pay revision was granted to petitioner no.1 with effect from
January 1, 1998 while Sri.Krishnakumar got the said benefit
with effect from July 1, 1997. The respondent tries to justify
this apparent anomaly by contending that petitioner no.1 and
Sri.Krishnakumar belong to two categories. Curiously, both
are teaching languages. There could not have such a hostile
classification or discrimination. This was exactly what the
learned Judge found in Ext.P6 judgment.
4. In any view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold
that Exts.P3 and P4 are bad in the eye of law. Apparently the
officers who passed Exts.P3 and P4 had not taken note of
Exts.P5 and P6 judgments of this court. Necessarily therefore
W.P.(C)No.10708 OF 2007
:: 3 ::
fresh orders have to be passed in the matter, keeping in view
the dictum laid down by this court in the judgments referred
to above. Therefore, Exts.P3 and P4 are quashed. The officer
concerned shall pass appropriate consequential orders in
terms of the observations made above.
Writ petition is allowed.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
jes