IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30610 of 2010(A)
1. TOMY ANTONY, H.S.A., ST.ANTONY'S
... Petitioner
2. GEORGE MATHEW, H.S.A.,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :20/10/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.30610 of 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
The case of the petitioners is the following : The first
petitioner joined in service as primary school teacher on
4.6.1987 and he was promoted as High School Assistant on
5.6.2006. The second petitioner joined in service on 3.6.1985 as
LPSA and he was promoted as HSA on 5.6.2006. The petitioners
are working in the schools under the same corporate
management. It is pointed out that Philomina Mathew, Jessy
Luice and Kochurani, who joined later in service, and who are
working in the schools under the same corporate management as
primary school teachers, are getting more salary than the salary
drawn by the petitioners. Pointing out this anomaly and praying
for rectifying the same, the petitioners approached the District
Educational Officer, who rejected their request. The petitioners
filed appeals before the Deputy Director of Education, who
dismissed the appeals as per Exhibits P8(a) and P10 orders
respectively in the case of the petitioners 1 and 2. Aggrieved by
WP(C) No.30610/2010 2
the orders passed by the Deputy Director, the first petitioner has
filed Exhibit P9 revision and the second petitioner has filed
Exhibit P11 revision before the first respondent. Exhibits P9 and
P11 are pending disposal.
2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the
following :
“(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing
the operation and all further proceedings in
pursuance to Exhibits P8(a) and P10;
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction,
commanding the first respondent to consider
and dispose of Exhibits P9 and P11 revision
petitioners, forthwith ;
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction,
commanding the respondents to sanction and
disburse higher scale of pay to the petitioners,
over and above had they been continued as
Primary School Teachers ;
WP(C) No.30610/2010 3
(iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction,
commanding the respondents not to reduce the
salary and allowances of the petitioners, for the
reason of having accepted the promotion to the
post of HSA;
(v) issue such other writ, order or
direction, which may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
since Exhibits P9 and P11 are pending disposal, the petitioners
would be satisfied for the present, if those revision petitions are
directed to be disposed of expeditiously.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows :
(a) The first respondent shall consider and dispose of
Exhibits P9 and P11 revisions, as expeditiously as
possible and at any rate within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
WP(C) No.30610/2010 4
judgment, after affording an opportunity of being
heard to the petitioners, the Corporate Manager and
any other affected party.
(b) The petitioners shall produce a copy of the Writ
Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the
first respondent.
K.T.SANKARAN
JUDGE
csl