{"id":35919,"date":"2009-06-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009"},"modified":"2015-11-15T05:12:32","modified_gmt":"2015-11-14T23:42:32","slug":"sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sumangala K vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sumangala K vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 27303 of 2009(G)\n\n\n1. SUMANGALA K.,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,\n\n3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,\n\n4. THE HEAD MASTER\/MISTRESS,\n\n5. ACCOUNT GENERAL OF KERALA (A & E),\n\n6. STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR (SSA),\n\n7. DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.K.PRADEEPKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :10\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                                                                  C.R\n\n\n                           C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.\n                    --------------------------------------------\n                       W.P.(C). NO.27303 OF 2009\n                    --------------------------------------------\n\n                   Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010\n\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The issue whether the petitioner had locus penetentiae to withdraw<\/p>\n
the notice of voluntary retirement from service and certain allied questions<\/p>\n
arise for consideration in this case. The facts, in succint sufficient to<\/p>\n
decide the said issue, are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      2.     The petitioner while working as High School Assistant<\/p>\n
(Hindi), under the General Education Department, was sent on deputation<\/p>\n
as per Ext.P1 dated 17.7.2004, to the Surva Shiksha Abhiyan Project (for<\/p>\n
short the ‘SSA Project’). It is a project under the Central Government.<\/p>\n
Later, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 application dated 8.2.2008 to the<\/p>\n
Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha to permit her to retire<\/p>\n
voluntarily with effect from 31.3.2008. According to the petitioner, there<\/p>\n
was no response at all to Ext.P2 application and she continued in the SSA<\/p>\n
Project till 31.3.2010. The petitioner was also given salary and other<\/p>\n
allowances upto 31.1.2010. However, payment of salary was discontinued<\/p>\n
from 31.1.2010 onwards. It was so intimated to the petitioner as per<\/p>\n
Ext.P15. Subsequently, Ext.P16 order dated 25.3.2010 was issued by the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.27303\/2009                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
District Project Officer (SSA) Alappuzha repatriating the petitioner to the<\/p>\n
parent department with instruction to report before the third respondent<\/p>\n
forthwith.  Ext.P17 dated 31.3.2010 is the relieving order.        On being<\/p>\n
relieved off the duties of the SSA Project, the petitioner reported to the<\/p>\n
third respondent as per Ext.P18. However, the third respondent did not<\/p>\n
permit the petitioner to rejoin duty citing the reason that her request for<\/p>\n
voluntary retirement with effect from 31.3.2008 was already accepted by<\/p>\n
the Department.     The said fact is evident from Ext.P19.       It is in the<\/p>\n
aforesaid circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed for a<\/p>\n
declaration that the petitioner’s continuance in service is lawful and proper<\/p>\n
and that Ext.P2 has become infructuous. The further prayer in the Writ<\/p>\n
Petition is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the<\/p>\n
respondents to close the file in respect of voluntary retirement made out by<\/p>\n
the petitioner vide Ext.P3, as infructuous.\n<\/p>\n
      3.     A counter affidavit has been filed in this Writ petition by the<\/p>\n
third respondent. The main thrust of the contentions therein is that by<\/p>\n
virtue of application of proviso to Rule 56 (4) Part III of Kerala Service<\/p>\n
Rules, the petitioner should be deemed to have been retired from service<\/p>\n
with effect from the intended date of retirement specified in Ext.P2 viz.,<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.27303\/2009                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
31.3.2008. Therefore, according to the respondents, the continuance of the<\/p>\n
petitioner beyond 31.3.2008 is illegal. The respondents are entitled to<\/p>\n
recover the salary and other allowances received by the petitioner after<\/p>\n
31.3.2008. Earlier, Ext.P7 notice was issued to the petitioner as also to the<\/p>\n
Headmistress of Government High School, Paravoor wherein the petitioner<\/p>\n
was working when she was deputed to the SSA Project. It is stated in the<\/p>\n
counter affidavit that the petitioner had specifically shown 31.3.2008 as<\/p>\n
the intended date of voluntary retirement and, on or before that date, the<\/p>\n
authority competent to make appointment to the post did not issue any<\/p>\n
order refusing to grant the permission for granting voluntary retirement.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it became effective with effect from 31.3.2008 itself.<\/p>\n
      4.     The contention of the petitioner is that subsequent to Ext.P2<\/p>\n
dated 8.2.2008, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application dated<\/p>\n
2.4.2008 requesting to withdraw Ext.P2 application.            The specific<\/p>\n
contention of the petitioner is that no order was passed by any of the<\/p>\n
authorities despite the receipt of Ext.P5 and, that apart, she continued in<\/p>\n
the service of SSA Project pursuant to the deputation till 31.3.2010. It is<\/p>\n
her specific case that despite the receipt of Ext.P2, the term of deputation<\/p>\n
of all the deputationists including the petitioner was extended as per<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.27303\/2009                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P12. In Ext.P12, the name of the petitioner figures at 13. As noticed<\/p>\n
hereinbefore, the petitioner was disbursed with the salary and other<\/p>\n
allowances till 31.1.2010. The same was discontinued only pursuant to<\/p>\n
Ext.P15. Further, she was relieved as per Ext.P17 only on 31.3.2010. In<\/p>\n
short, after the intended date of retirement, the petitioner had worked till<\/p>\n
31.3.2010. Exts.P16 and P17 would reveal that she was relieved from SSA<\/p>\n
Project with a specific direction to report before the third respondent.<\/p>\n
According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 application had not taken its effect<\/p>\n
either on 31.3.2008 or thereafter and therefore, when she reported before<\/p>\n
the third respondent pursuant to Ext.P17, she should have been permitted<\/p>\n
to rejoin duty in the parent department.\n<\/p>\n
      5.     According to me, it is unnecessary to delve into the facts any<\/p>\n
more in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in VenuGopal v.<\/p>\n
State of Kerala<\/a> reported in 2010(1) ILR 867. After referring to the rules<\/p>\n
relating to voluntary retirement applicable to employees in different states,<\/p>\n
it was held that under certain rules, expiry of the period specified in the<\/p>\n
notice would result in automatic retirement of an employee upon the expiry<\/p>\n
of the period specified in the employees’ notice. It is further held that<\/p>\n
certain rules are couched in such manner that even upon the expiry of the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.27303\/2009                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
period specified in the notice, the retirement is not automatic and an<\/p>\n
expressed order granting permission is required. That apart, the same has<\/p>\n
to be communicated as well. In explicit terms, it has been held that Rule<\/p>\n
56 of Part III Kerala Service Rules fall under the first category. In this<\/p>\n
context, it is relevant to look into the proviso to Rule 56(iv) of Part III<\/p>\n
Kerala Service Rules. As per the same, in case the authority competent to<\/p>\n
make appointment to the post held by the concerned employee who applied<\/p>\n
for voluntary retirement, does not refuse to grant permission for retirement<\/p>\n
before the date on which the employee wished to retire, the retirement<\/p>\n
would become effective with effect from the date specified in the notice.<\/p>\n
In this case, admittedly, the intended date of retirement was specified as<\/p>\n
31.3.2008 by the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that before the said<\/p>\n
date, no order refusing to grant permission for voluntary retirement was<\/p>\n
passed. The fact that the petitioner had continued in service of SSA even<\/p>\n
after the said date cannot be a reason to arrest the automatic operation of<\/p>\n
the aforesaid provision. Admittedly, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5<\/p>\n
only after the intended date of voluntary retirement. It was submitted only<\/p>\n
on 2.4.2008 whereas the intended date of retirement was 31.3.2008. To<\/p>\n
know whether Ext.P5 letter dated 2.4.2008 has got any impact, one has to<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.27303\/2009                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
look into the relevant provision under the statute viz., proviso to Sub-rule<\/p>\n
(iv) of Rule 56 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules that contains the<\/p>\n
doctrine of deemed acceptance. It reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
             “Voluntary retirement of an employee shall become
\n             effective on the grant of permission to retire by the
\n             authority competent to make appointment to the post.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    Provided that where the authority competent to
\n             make appointment to the post does not refuse to grant
\n             permission for retirement before the date on which the
\n             employee wishes to retire specified in the notice under
\n             clause (i), the retirement shall become effective from
\n             the date specified in the notice.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Sub-rule (v) of Rule 56 also has relevance in the context of the case and it<\/p>\n
runs as hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
             Permission to retire shall be given in all cases except
\n             those in which disciplinary proceedings are pending
\n             for imposition of a major penalty or the disciplinary
\n             authority, having regard to the circumstances of the
\n             cases is of the view that the imposition of the penalty of
\n             removal or dismissal from service would be warranted
\n             or in which prosecution is contemplated or may have
\n             been launched in a Court of Law against the officer;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A scanning of proviso to Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 56 would undoubtedly show<\/p>\n
that it postulates a positive action viz., refusal to grant permission for<\/p>\n
retirement, in order to prevent one’s voluntary option for retirement to<\/p>\n
become effective by virtue of its operation.          Admittedly, none of the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.27303\/2009                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
circumstances contemplated under Sub-rule (v) of Rule 56 existed in this<\/p>\n
case, warranting denial of such permission. In the circumstances, in the<\/p>\n
light of proviso to Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 56 and the Division Bench<\/p>\n
decision reported in 2010 (1) ILR 867 (supra), I am of the view that the<\/p>\n
inescapable conclusion can only be that the petitioner should be deemed to<\/p>\n
have been retired voluntarily on 31.3.2008.       Thus, by virtue of legal<\/p>\n
provision, the jural relationship has come to an end and it was only<\/p>\n
thereafter, Ext.P5 dated 2.4.2008 was submitted for permission to<\/p>\n
withdraw Ext.P2 option of voluntary retirement. In the said circumstances,<\/p>\n
the petitioner could not claim that he had locus penetentiae to withdraw the<\/p>\n
option of voluntary retirement on 2.4.2008. In fact, Ext.P5 dated 2.4.2008<\/p>\n
was a request to permit him to withdraw Ext.P2 and to resume duty. In the<\/p>\n
light of the proviso to Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 56 of Part III KSR, the said<\/p>\n
request could not have been granted. Therefore, the contention of the<\/p>\n
petitioner regarding its non-consideration needs no serious consideration.<\/p>\n
Evidently, the effective date of voluntary retirement in this case is<\/p>\n
31.3.2008 and, therefore, the fact that he was not actually relieved on<\/p>\n
31.3.2008 and continued in service cannot have any legal impact and it<\/p>\n
cannot by itself make the request for withdrawal acceptable and allowable<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.27303\/2009                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in J.N.Srivastava v.<\/p>\n
Union of India & another reported in 1998 (9) SCC 559 and JT 1997(4)<\/p>\n
SCC 300. In this context, it is also to be noted that the petitioner as also<\/p>\n
the Headmistress of Government High School, Paravur were issued with<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 notice dated 8.9.2008. In the light of Ext.P8 also, the petitioner<\/p>\n
cannot be heard to contend that she is legally entitled to resume duty<\/p>\n
merely on account of her continuance beyond 31.3.2008. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
petitioner is not entitled to get a declaration that her continuance in service<\/p>\n
was lawful and that Ext.P2 has become infructuous. So also, the fact that<\/p>\n
the petitioner continued in the SSA Project till 31.3.2010 also cannot<\/p>\n
nullify the effect of the proviso to Rule 56(iv) of Part III KSR. For all<\/p>\n
these reasons, I am of the view that Ext.P2 submitted by the petitioner for<\/p>\n
voluntary retirement should be deemed to have been taken its effect from<\/p>\n
31.3.2008 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted the relief to<\/p>\n
enable resumption of duties.\n<\/p>\n
       6.     But, in this case, as is obvious from the records, the petitioner<\/p>\n
had continued beyond 31.3.2008 under the SSA. In fact, she continued for<\/p>\n
more than two years and the said fact is evident from Exts.P16 and P17. It<\/p>\n
is also an admitted position that till 31.1.2010, the petitioner was given<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.27303\/2009                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
salary and other allowances.        The petitioner was relieved from SSA<\/p>\n
Project only on 31.3.2010. Therefore, the question is, whether in the said<\/p>\n
circumstances, the respondents are justified in attempting to recover the<\/p>\n
amount already paid to the petitioner.    Having exploited her service, the<\/p>\n
respondents cannot deny her remuneration. Even if they had engaged<\/p>\n
somebody in any capacity, they could not have denied the remuneration.<\/p>\n
Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for the respondents to initiate<\/p>\n
steps to recover the amount already paid to the petitioner till 31.1.2010.<\/p>\n
But, of course, that period is not reckonable for the purpose of granting the<\/p>\n
pensionery benefits. The impact of the proviso to Rule 56 (iv) would<\/p>\n
definitely disentitle the petitioner from claiming for any other service<\/p>\n
benefits beyond 31.3.2008. Though the petitioner was served with Ext.P7<\/p>\n
notice, no action was, in fact, taken against the petitioner. Therefore, even<\/p>\n
in the absence of a challenge against the recovery proceedings, I think in<\/p>\n
the interest of justice, this Court has to interfere and mould the relief<\/p>\n
accordingly. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents not to<\/p>\n
pursue with any kind of proceedings against the petitioner for the purpose<\/p>\n
of recovering the amounts received by the petitioner after 31.3.2008 till<\/p>\n
31.1.2010.    Needless to say that the competent authorities among the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.27303\/2009                10<\/span><\/p>\n
respondents shall take appropriate steps for the disbursement of the<\/p>\n
benefits due to the petitioner on account of her voluntary retirement with<\/p>\n
effect from 31.3.2008, expeditiously.\n<\/p>\n
      The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
spc<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.27303\/2009    11<\/span><\/p>\n
                            C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
                            W.P.(C). NO. \/2010<\/p>\n
                            JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                              June, 2010<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NO.27303\/2009    12<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sumangala K vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 27303 of 2009(G) 1. SUMANGALA K., … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS … Respondent 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, 4. THE HEAD […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35919","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSumangala K vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sumangala K vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-14T23:42:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sumangala K vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-14T23:42:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2066,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Sumangala K vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-14T23:42:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sumangala K vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sumangala K vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sumangala K vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-14T23:42:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sumangala K vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-14T23:42:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009"},"wordCount":2066,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009","name":"Sumangala K vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-14T23:42:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumangala-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sumangala K vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35919","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=35919"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35919\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35919"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}