Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

C.S. Sreekumari vs State Of Kerala on 6 March, 1969

       

  

  

 
 
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT:

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

      FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/2ND PHALGUNA, 1935

                    WP(C).No. 16421 of 2012 (C)
                    ----------------------------

PETITIONER(S):
-------------

       C.S. SREEKUMARI
       HEADMISTRESS
       SREEKRISHNA VILASOM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL
       EVOOR NORTH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

       BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P

RESPONDENT(S):
--------------

     1. STATE OF KERALA
       REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
       GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (H)
       GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

    2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
       THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

    3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
       ALAPPUZHA.

    4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
       HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

    5. THE MANAGER
       SREEKRISHNA VILASOM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL
       EVOOR NORTH.

       R1  BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RANJITH

       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD  ON
21-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                                   -2-

                              APPENDIX


PETITIONER's EXHIBITS

EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF NTHE ORDER G.O.(MS) NO. 104/69/EDN DATED
6.3.1969.

EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) NO. 240/99/G.EDN DATED
29.9.1999.

EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) NO. 112/2001/G.EDN. DATED
26.3.2001.

EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) 1089/2008/G.EDN DATED
29.2.2008.

EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.1.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 15.2.2012 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER.

EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO. 2796/2012/G.EDN. DATED
15.6.2012.

EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C-2140/01 DATED 12.7.2001 ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTs EXHIBITS:NIL


                       TRUE COPY

                                                     P.A TO JUDGE

AL/-



                 A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
                    ---------------------------
                  W.P.C. No. 16421 of 2012
                    --------------------------
         Dated this the 21st day of February 2014.

                            JUDGMENT

Ext.P5, by which the petitioner's claim for regularisation of the break in service periods during 15.7.1991 to 1.9.1991 and 14.12.1991 to 31.5.1992 was rejected, is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner was originally appointed in the 5th respondent school on a regular vacancy on 9.6.1988. This has been approved. Later on 15.7.1991 she had been retrenched from service due to division fall. Again on 1.6.1992 she was reappointed in her parent school, that also has been approved. Again she was retrenched due to division fall on 14.7.1995.

3. The petitioner relied on Ext.P3 Government Order dated 26.3.2001 by which protection was granted to all retrenched aided school teachers who were appointed prior to 14.7.1996.

4. According to the petitioner, those who did not complete 7 years of service on or before 15.7.1995 and who were not in service as on 14.7.1996 will be given protection.

5. The petitioner alleges that she was permitted to rejoin in the parent school by the 5th respondent on 6.6.2001 and the 4th W.P.(C) No. 16421/2012 : 2 : respondent was pleased to grant protection to her vide Ext.P8 in the light of Ext.P3 Government Order. Later she was appointed as Headmistress of the school with effect from 1.6.2006.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that by Ext.P5, her claim for regularisation of the break in service period during 15.7.1991 to 1.9.1991 and 14.12.1991 to 31.5.1992 was rejected. Though Ext.P5 was challenged in revision, it was without success. Ext.P7 is the copy of the revisional order. It is in this context the petitioner has come out before this court.

7. The first respondent filed a detailed counter wherein they have admitted the appointment as well as the reappointments. According to them the petitioner was out of service during 3 spells. The first was from 15.7.1991 to 1.9.1991, the second was from 14.12.1991 to 31.5.1992 and the third was from 15.7.1995 to 10.10.2001.

8. Though the respondents admitted Ext.P3, they would contend that the petitioner was lastly retrenched from service with effect from 15.7.1995 and deployed by protection on 11.10.2001 and the Government has regularised the period of service from 15.7.1995 to 10.10.2001 which according to them is in order.

W.P.(C) No. 16421/2012 : 3 :

9. However, according to the respondents, her request for regularisation for broken periods prior to 1995 were rejected by the Government vide Exts.P5 and P7 orders, as she was not eligible within the ambit of protection.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in the matter.

11. Exts.P1 to P3 orders are pressed in to service to show that the break in service periods of all aided school teachers who are eligible for protection thereunder are to be regularised as eligible leave or leave without allowances. The date of appointments and reappointments and the spells during which she was out of service are not in dispute.

12. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no restrictions as pointed out in the counter filed by the respondent State are there in any of Exts.P1 to P3. Therefore, it was argued that the break in service period during her first spell of service i.e from 15.7.1991 to 1.9.91 and 14.12.1991 to 31.5.1992 are to be regularised as per Exts.P1 to P3 Government Orders. I see force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the Government Orders referred to above, it is made clear that all the break in service periods till W.P.(C) No. 16421/2012 : 4 : the deployment would be regulairsed.

13. Therefore, this Court is of the definite view that the rejection of the claim under Exts.P5 & P7 is against the mandates in Exts.P1 to P3.

14. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P5 & P7 are quashed.

15. The respondents are directed to regularise the break periods in service of the petitioner during 15.7.1991 to 1.9.1991 and 14.12.1991 to 31.5.1992 in accordance with Exts.P1 to P3 within a period of two months from today.

To facilitate an early action in the matter, it shall be open to the petitioner to produce a copy the judgment along with copies of Exts.P1 to P3 before the 2nd respondent within a period of one month from today.

Sd/-

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI Judge.

AL/-