IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34506 of 2005(G)
1. STELLA SNEGHAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, TRIVANDRUM.
For Petitioner :SMT.S.A.SHERLY
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :16/07/2009
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
----------------------------------------
WPC. No.34506 OF 2005
----------------------------------------
Dated, 16th day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a retired Sewing Teacher. She
approached this Court praying inter alia to issue a writ
of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the
full time service benefits as contemplated by the
Government Order viz., G.O.(Rt.)56/71/Gen.Edn.
dated 19.5.1971. It is also prayed for a declaration
that inaction on the part of the respondents in granting
the benefits as per Ext.P1 Government Order is highly
illegal and arbitrary. Another prayer is for a direction
to pay compensation to the petitioner for the undue
delay and inaction in implementing the orders in favour
of the petitioner and failure in granting her service
benefits. The fourth prayer is for a direction to the Ist
respondent to issue clarification to the Accountant
General to approve the fixation of pay and pensionary
claims of the petitioner.
WPC 34506/05
-:2:-
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and also the learned Government Pleader.
3. As per Ext.P1 order, the respondents have
admitted that the petitioner was eligible for full time
benefit from 1.6.1971 as ordered in
G.O.Rt.No.56/71/S.Edn., dated 19.5.1971. When the
department has admitted her claim, as evidenced in Ext.P1
order, it is further stated that due to oversight she was
not given the benefits before her retirement from service
on 31.3.88. It is also stated that the Director of Public
Instruction has recommended that the service put in by
Smt. Stella Sneham from June 1971 may be treated as full
time for granting her pensionary benefits including
D.C.R.G. The Department or the Government has, though
admitted that the petitioner was eligible for full time
benefit from 1.6.71, no reason is assigned to deny the
service and other monetary benefit till her retirement.
Naturally, the petitioner was entitled to get all consequent
monetary benefits including the salary. But in Ext.P1
WPC 34506/05
-:3:-
order, nothing is mentioned about those aspects, but the
only concession granted is that service put in by the
petitioner as a Sewing Teacher from June 1971, is treated
as full time for the purpose of granting her pensionary
benefits including DCRG. This Court cannot tolerate the
above arbitrary and illegal approach of the respondents
in denying the valuable and legitimate right of the
petitioner for the emoluments consequent to the benefit
given to the petitioner on the strength of the above
government order and also Ext.P1, especially, when the
petitioner is in no way responsible for the same and
particularly when the respondents admitted their fault.
4. Now, this court cannot ignore the fact that the
petitioner had already retired from service during the year
1988 and thereafter 21 years have elapsed. Therefore, it
is time for the respondents to correct their mistake by
paying the monetary benefit to her in the light of the fact
that, as per Ext.P1, the respondents admitted that the
petitioner is eligible for full time benefit from 1.6.1971.
WPC 34506/05
-:4:-
Hence, the monetary benefits for which the petitioner is
entitled cannot be denied any further and the payment
shall not be prolonged in view of the particular facts and
circumstances involved in this case.
5.. In the result this writ petition is allowed directing
the respondents to pay the entire monetary benefits due to
the petitioner from June 1971 after calculating the same in
accordance with the pay applicable to full time Sewing
Teacher, and on the basis of the recommendations of the
Pay Commissions from time to time, and holding that the
petitioner has no option in terms of the report of the Pay
Commission and thus after finalising and quantifying the
amount, the same shall be given to the petitioner within
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment which will be produced by the petitioner before
the Ist respondent. The first respondent is also directed to
entrust the above responsibility exclusively with an officer
not below the rank of a Deputy Director of Education or an
officer equivalent to his rank considering the seriousness
WPC 34506/05
-:5:-
of the matter. The respondents 1 and 2 are also directed
to issue appropriate communications to the 3rd
respondent, after fixation of pay, for the purpose of the
follow up action in the matter, connected with payment
to the petitioner.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE
kvm/-
WPC 34506/05
-:6:-
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
O.P.No.
JUDGMENT
Dated:..