Kerala High Court
M.P.Gopalan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2021
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.835 OF 2011(D)
PETITIONER:
M.P.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 80 YEARS,
S/O. MADHAVAN PILLAI, MANAGER,, B.V.U.P SCHOOL,
ANCHAL, P.O. ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL, EDUCATION (K)
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
ANCHAL, KOLLAM - 691 306.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM - 691 501.
4 D.SASIKALA DEVI KUNJAMMA
SEWING TEACHER, B.V.U.P SCHOOL, ANCHAL,,
P.O. ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 306.
SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG OF INDIA
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.835 OF 2011(D)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of March 2021 The petitioner, who was 80 years at the time when this writ petition was filed, has approached this Court impugning Ext.P11 order issued by the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO), Anchal, mulcting him with a liability of Rs.4,02,623/-, which represents the salary paid to the fourth respondent - Sewing Teacher in the "BVUP School", Anchal.
2. The petitioner concedes that he was the Manager of the School but asserts that the appointment of the fourth respondent was not irregular and that it has been confirmed by this Court through Ext.P10 judgment. He, therefore, contends that the action of the AEO to mulct him with liability through Ext.P11, is illegal and unlawful and therefore, prays that the same be set aside.
3. I notice that when this matter was considered by this Court on 11.01.2011, an interim order had been granted against Ext.P11 which continues to be in force even today.
4. When I examine Ext.P11, it alleges that the petitioner had illegally allowed the fourth respondent teacher to work in WP(C).No.835 OF 2011(D) 3 the school as a Sewing Teacher, even though there were not sufficient posts to accommodate her and even when the students' strength was below the minimum required for maintaining such a post.
5. However, when one sees the directions in Ext.P10 judgment, particularly those contained in paragraph 20 thereof , there can be no doubt that this Court has found that the appointment of the fourth respondent was not irregular and that she was entitled to be granted benefits, reckoning her period of service from 07.06.1993 to 31.05.2001 for all service benefits. The specific observations of this Court in the said judgment as under:
"20. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P10 is quashed in so far as the Government denies reckoning of the period from 07.06.1993 to 31.05.2001 for service benefits. Exts.P17, P18 and P19 which are only dependent orders, are also quashed. Exts.P1 to P3 orders will be treated as valid to reckon the petitioner's service from 07.06.1993 for all benefits including scale of pay, annual increments, higher grades, pay revision benefits and for pensionable service. The monetary benefits due to her including salary for the period from 07.06.1993 to 31.05.2001 accordingly will be refixed and appropriate orders will be passed by the second respondent and the benefits will be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs."
6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that when this Court WP(C).No.835 OF 2011(D) 4 has already found the appointment of the fourth respondent to be without error and when her service from 07.06.1993 to 31.05.2001 has already been directed to be reckoned for all service benefits, the petitioner could not have been mulcted with any liability, as has been done through Ext.P11.
7. That apart, as I have already said above, the interim interdiction ordered by this Court against Ext.P11 has continued to be in force for the last more 10 years and I am certain that no further action based thereon can be now taken forward.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P11.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Stu JUDGE
WP(C).No.835 OF 2011(D)
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.4862/99/G.EDN
DATED 9.11.1999.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.7991/K3/99/G.EDN
DATED 24.4.2001.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
16.6.2001.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN
C.M.P.NO.56660/2001 IN O.P.NO.34660/2001 DATED 21.1.2002.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) 700/02/G.EDN. DATED 1.4.2002.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.34660/2001 DATED 25.9.2002.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.5288/05/G.EDN.
DATED 11.11.2005.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.33867/2005 DATED 8.9.2006.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.1262/2007/G.EDN DATED 21.3.2007.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.19030/2008 DATED 3.12.2009.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/3631/2010 DATED 22.10.2020.