Kerala High Court
V.P.Chandran vs The Deputy Director Of Education on 25 June, 2010
Author: C.T. Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20351 of 2009(L)
1. V.P.CHANDRAN,
... Petitioner
2. V.K.BALAN,
3. JANARDHANAN K.,
4. K.P.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
5. K.M.VELAYUDHAN,
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. STATE OF KERALA,
4. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT)-KERALA,
For Petitioner :DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :25/06/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO.20351 OF 2009
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition has been filed mainly with the following prayers
i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to quash Exts.P4, P6 and P7 orders issued by the respondents;
ii) to declare that the petitioners are entitled to get the service weightage reckoning their aided school services as per the provisions contained in government order G.O.(P)3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998. The legal issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered against the petitioner by the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.288/2005 and connected matters. In paragraph 6 of the said judgment, it is held as follows:
"When the pay revision order does not specifically include a particular service for the purpose of weightage, it cannot be counted for granting the said benefits."
W.P.(C) NO.20351/2009 2
In the light of the same, the petitioners cannot claim that they are entitled for the service weightage. The further contention of the petitioners is that they are entitled to retain the amount received by them in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble apex court in Registrar of Co-perative Societies v. Israil Khan ( 2009 (4) KLT 61) and Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar (2009(3) SCC 475). Similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C).No.17055/2005. As per the judgment dated 21.12.2009, this Court repelled the relief sought for counting the service weightage and at the same time, based on the aforesaid decisions, it was held:
"Therefore, I respectfully follow the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner to quash Exts.P2, P9 and P10 is refused. But there will be a direction to the respondents not to effect recovery of excess payment received by the petitioner pursuant to the pay fixation as per Ext.P1."
The petitioners herein are similarly situated to the petitioners in W.P.(C). No.17055/2005. In the light of the judgment in W.A.No.288/2005 and connected matters and W.P.(C).No.17055/2005, I decline to interfere with Exts.P4 and P6 orders. However, in the light of the judgment dated W.P.(C) NO.20351/2009 3 21.12.2009 in W.P.(C).No.17055/2005 rendered relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble apex court in 2009(3) SCC 475 (supra) and 2009(4) KLT 461 (supra), Ext.P7 order is set aside. There will be a further direction to the respondents not to effect recovery of excess payment received by the petitioners pursuant to pay fixation as per G.O.(P).No.3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.20351/2009 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C). NO. /2010 JUDGMENT June, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.20351/2009 5