Kerala High Court
Baby Bismi B vs State Of Kerala on 1 November, 2016
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2017/4TH SRAVANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 23129 of 2017 (M)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
BABY BISMI B,
UPSA, S.K.V.V.HSS, THRIKKANNAMANGAL,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT ATHIRA, KUDAVATTOOR.P.O.
KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.R.REJI
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
SRI.ARUN BOSE
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL EDUCATION,
GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR(EDUCATION),
KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN- 691 001
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN- 691 506
5. THE MANAGER,
S.K.V.V.HSS, THRIKKANNAMANGAL,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN- 691 506.
R1 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
TS
WP(C).No. 23129 of 2017 (M)
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
--------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.11.2016 BEFORE
THE GOVERNMENT ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.11.2016 IN
WPC NO 36400/2016(Y).
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE DATED 5.4.2017 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE G(RT) NO.1998/2017/G.EDN DATED 22.6.2017
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS -NIL
------------------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
TS
P.V.ASHA, J.
----------------------
W.P.(C).No.23129 of 2017
----------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of July, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who has been working as a UPSA is aggrieved by the denial of salary for the period from 1.06.2014 onwards. The petitioner points out that she is working on the basis of an approved appointment.
2. According to the petitioner, the initial spell of her appointment was in D.A.M UP School, Edakkoor against a leave vacancy for the period from 16.06.2006 to 29.1.2009. The Manager thereafter appointed her in S.K.V.VHSS, Thrikkanamangal for the period from 30.01.2009 to 31.03.2012, when a vacancy arose on promotion of another UPSA against a leave vacancy of HSA. A further appointment was given to her for the period from 1.04.2012 to 30.9.2017. As the petitioner did not receive salary for the period from 1/06/2014 onwards she approached the Head Master requesting for the payment. As there was no action, she approached the Director of Public Instruction with a representation dated 21.08.2014. As there was no action, she submitted Ext.P1 representation dated 1.11.2016 before the Government requesting for appropriate action to disburse her salary. Thereafter she approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.36400/2016. W.P.(C).No.23129 of 2017 2
3. As per Ext.P2 judgment dated 14.11.2016, this court directed the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on her representation, Ext.P1 after hearing all the affected parties. Thereafter a hearing was held and 1st respondent passed Ext.P4 order directing the Director of Public Instruction to consider her claims. The Government found that there are two Schools under the Management and therefore it is for the Director of Public Instruction to approve the seniority list. The Government found that the complaint of the petitioner can be considered only after examining her position in the seniority list. Therefore, government directed the Director of Public Instruction to consider the case of the petitioner considering her appointment with approval. The petitioner had claimed shortage in payment of arrears of her salary for the period from 1/07/2009. The Government directed the DPI to take a decision on that aspect also after taking a decision on approval of the seniority list.
4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order. As the Government had examined her case and it was found that the seniority list has to be approved by the Director of Public Instruction and the complaint of the petitioner has to be decided thereafter, it cannot be said that the direction of the Government to the Director of Public Instruction was improper. Ext.P1 was only a representation submitted by the petitioner W.P.(C).No.23129 of 2017 3 pointing out her grievances. Government found that her grievances has to be considered after finalization/approval of the seniority list. No illegality can be found in the direction of the Government in Ext.P4.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action expeditiously, in tune with the direction in Ext.P4 and to consider the claims raised by the petitioner in Ext.P1 representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as 5 th respondent and teachers if any likely to be affected, on approval of the seniority list, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA JUDGE //True Copy\\ P.A to Judge IAP