High Court Kerala High Court

T. Raghavan vs State Of Kerala on 21 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
T. Raghavan vs State Of Kerala on 21 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17460 of 2006(C)


1. T. RAGHAVAN, DRAWING TEACHER
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR.

3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.PAREETH

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :21/08/2009

 O R D E R
                 T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
               ---------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C) No.17460 OF 2006
               ---------------------------------------
           Dated this the 21st day of August, 2009.


                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is working as Drawing Teacher (Part time) in

the Ramajayam U.P. School, Azheekode in Kannur District. He

entered service as such on 29.07.1985. But, in spite of the

completion of 24 years, he has not been given the benefit of

conversion to a full time post.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner will not be able to get any pensionary benefits if he

retires only as a part time Teacher. The order impugned is

Exhibit P3 wherein the Government has taken the view that the

post cannot be converted as a full time one in the light of the fact

that there are only 286 students available in the school.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government has

granted relaxation in favour of different teachers going by

W.P.(C) No.17460/06 2

Exhibits P4 to P6, and the petitioner’s case also could be

considered for relaxation. Specific reference was made to

Exhibit P5. It is a case of conversion of part time post of Drawing

Teacher into full time post in the South Pattiam U.P. School in

Kannur District. The petitioner points out that the same is an

identical case where the Government has granted the benefit.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, the

stand taken is that the orders produced by the petitioner cannot

be made applicable in the sense that those cannot be treated as

a precedent. Assuming so, the claim of the petitioner, by relying

upon Exhibits P4 to P6, has not been considered in Exhibit P3.

It is evident that the power to grant relaxation has been

exercised in favour of others. The grievance raised by the

petitioner that he may have to go out of service without even

getting pension is a matter for the Government to consider.

In that view of the matter, Exhibit P3 is set aside and the

matter will be reconsidered by the Government. Since the

petitioner is relying upon Exhibits P4 to P6, the matter will be

W.P.(C) No.17460/06 3

considered by the Government in the light of the said orders and

appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of four months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE

smp