Kerala High Court
Sheeja.S.V vs State Of Kerala on 21 March, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/21ST ASWINA, 1936
WP(C).No. 27147 of 2013 (P)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
--------------
SHEEJA.S.V.,
W/O.C.L.SHOBHANAKUMAR,
UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
LUTHERGIRI UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, ARYANAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.R.REJI
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
RESPONDENTS:
------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN: 695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 001.
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 001.
5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 541.
6. THE MANAGER,
CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF LUTHERAN SCHOOLS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURA SYNOD,
CLHSS COMPOUND, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PIN: 695 005.
R1-R5 BY ADV. SMT. LOUSY K.A., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 27147 of 2013 (P)
----------------------------
: 2 :
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
---------------------------
EXT.P1: TRUIE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.SC (2) /18419/2011/DPI DATED
21/03/2011.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SC (2) /18419/2011/DPI/D.DIS DATED
28/05/2011.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F(1) / 58522/2011/DPI DATED 6/2/2012.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 25/7/2012 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DPI.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F1/84226/11/DPI/K.DIS. DATED
31/7/2013.
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/9/2013 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DPI
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
------------------------------
/True Copy/
P.A to Judge
rv
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
----------------------------------
W.P. ) No. 27147 of 2013
----------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2014
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.
2.Briefly stated, the petitioner initially joined as UPSA under the management of the 6th respondent on 11.06.1990 in Luthergiri UP School, Aryanad. Later, the petitioner was promoted on 14.06.2006 as HSA and posted in Concodia Lutheran Higher Secondary School, Peroorkada, Thiruvananthapuram. It emerges from the record that on 15.07.2010, the authorities exercised a super check on the school in which the petitioner had been working as HSA. Having found that the 6th respondent had been guilty of inflating student-strength in the school in which the petitioner had been working as HSA, the authorities issued proceedings on 21.03.2011 reverting the petitioner W.P.(C) No.27147/2013 -2- as UPSA. In other words, taking note of the fall in the division, the respondent authorities issued orders reverting the petitioner as UPSA. It appears that on 01.04.2011, the petitioner reported back in the school she worked earlier. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though she has been working since 01.04.2011 in her reverted position as UPSA in Luthergiri UP School, Aryanad, so far she has not been paid any salary. Complaining of the inaction of the respondent authorities in this regard, she filed the present writ petition.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit substantially admitting the claim of the petitioner, but placing on record the plea that the petitioner could not be paid salary on the ground that the Manager had to adjust the lien from 15.07.2010 to 19.04.2011 in respect of the petitioner. Thus, owing to the inaction of the 6th respondent Manager, the respondent authorities could not process the claim of the petitioner to pay the salary to her from 01.04.2011.
4. The 6th respondent Manager has also filed a counter affidavit without contradicting the petitioner's claim. In response to the defence set up by the respondent authorities that he had not adjusted the lien of the petitioner, in paragraph 10 of the counter W.P.(C) No.27147/2013 -3- affidavit, the manager pleaded that he had already adjusted the lien and that no salary had been paid to any other teacher with effect from 15.07.2010 as UPSA. During the course of making her submissions, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that since the 5th respondent filed the counter affidavit very recently, she did not have sufficient time to check with the authorities whether they received any proceedings from the 6th respondent showing the lien adjustment and other consequential measures said to have been taken by the said Manager.
5. Be that as it may, it is very evident that the petitioner has been caught in the crossfire between the 6th respondent Management and the Government authorities. It is further evident that the 6th respondent has been guilty of inflating the admission figures to cover up the fall in the division, but in the end it is the petitioner, who has to bear the brunt.
6. The Government does not have any substantive objection to the petitioner's claim to salary from 01.04.2011, save the objection that the management had been remiss in taking steps to adjust the lien of the petitioner. Now, in the light of the counter affidavit filed by W.P.(C) No.27147/2013 -4- the 6th respondent manager that he had already adjusted the lien and no other teacher had been paid salary from 15.07.2010 as UPSA, I do not see any major hurdle for the respondent authorities to process the claim of the petitioner.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 5th respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for salary from 01.04.2011 duly taking into account the statement made by the 6th respondent Manager in the counter affidavit filed by him before this Court. If the 5th respondent has any doubt with regard to the adjustment of the lien of the petitioner as has claimed by the 6th respondent Manager, the said authorities are at liberty to call for the necessary records from the 6th respondent to ensure that there is no shortcoming in the procedure said to have been adopted by the 6th respondent. Given the fact that the petitioner has already suffered for considerable time without salary, this Court is of the considered opinion that the 5th respondent shall process the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within W.P.(C) No.27147/2013 -5- two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is further made clear that, if desired by the 5th respondent, the petitioner shall produce a copy of this writ petition along with the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent Manager before the 5th respondent so as to enable the said authority to take appropriate decision without further delay.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv W.P.(C) No.27147/2013 -6-