IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16150 of 2008(V)
1. S.RAVEENDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :31/01/2011
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 16150 of 2008
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
Petitioner entered service as PD Teacher on 26.9.1972. He was
promoted as Headmaster on 23.5.1981, pursuant to which, he joined
duty on 1.6.1981.
2. The petitioner’s grievance in this Writ Petition is that
Headmaster’s scale has not been given to the petitioner on the ground
that he has not completed 15 years of service as required under Rule 1
of Chapter XXVI of the Kerala Education Rules. According to the
petitioner, that Rule is not applicable to the petitioner in so far as the
petitioner was promoted as Headmaster prior to 18.9.1988. A Division
Bench of this Court, in Annet D’ Cunha v. State of Kerala (2004 (1)
KLT 161), has held that Rule 1 of Chapter XXVI of KER is not
applicable retrospectively and those Headmasters who were appointed
prior to 8th September, 1988 are entitled to the scale of pay of
Headmasters even if they are not having 15 years’ service. The
petitioner points out that relying on the said finding of the Division
Bench, this Court has allowed O.P.No.17475 of 1999, pursuant to
which, Exhibit P1 order has been passed in favour of a similarly
situated Headmaster granting Headmaster’s scale to him. Despite a
WP(C).16150/08 2
judgment of this Court, by Exhibit P5 order, the petitioner has been
denied the said benefit. The petitioner challenged Exhibits P3 and P5
seeking the following reliefs:
“i) issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate
writ order or direction, calling for othe records
leading to Ext.P3 and P5 and quash the same;
ii) declare that the petitioner is entitled for the scale
of pay of Headmaster with effect from 1.6.1981
with all consequential benefits;
iii) to grant such other and further reliefs as this
Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the
circumstances of the case.”
3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.
4. The learned Government Pleader does not dispute the fact
that the issue involved is covered by the decision rendered in Annet
D’ Cunha’s case (supra). His contention is that, that decision does not
take into account another Government Order, which was issued on 18th
November, 1980. I cannot countenance that contention insofar as I am
bound by the Division Bench decision. If the Government does not
agree with the said decision, they have to take the same in appeal
appropriately. In so far as the Division Bench decision is there and
pursuant to that Division Bench decision, identically situated persons
have been given the benefit by the Government themselves, the
Government cannot now take the contention that in view of some
WP(C).16150/08 3
other Government order the petitioner is not entitled to the said
benefit.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and it is declared that
the petitioner is entitled to the scale of pay of Headmaster with effect
from 1.6.1981 with all consequential monetary and other benefits.
Orders in this respect shall be issued and arrears shall be disbursed to
the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
vgs