Kerala High Court
Reshma Parayil vs State Of Kerala on 16 September, 2025
2025:KER:68953
W.P.(C). No.25796 of 2022
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 25TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25796 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
RESHMA PARAYIL
AGED 43 YEARS
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (ECONOMICS),
KADACHIRA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADACHIRA P.O.,
KANNUR - 670 621., RESIDING AT SHIVAPARVATHI
HOUSE, THALAMUNDA, KOODALI P.O., KANNUR, PIN -
670592
BY ADVS.SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY
SRI.P.S.GIREESH
SHRI.SALIH P.A.
SHRI.ARJUN R NAIK
SMT.THEJALAKSHMI R.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
ANNEXE -II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION,
HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, PAYYAMBALAM, KANNUR P.O,
KANNUR, PIN - 670003
2025:KER:68953
W.P.(C). No.25796 of 2022
:2:
4 THE MANAGER
KADACHIRA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADACHIRA P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670621
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
GP- NIMA JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:68953
W.P.(C). No.25796 of 2022
:3:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W.P.(C) No.25796 of 2022
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P8, P10 and P13 orders, to the extent it appoint the petitioner to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher(HSST)(Economics) only from 01.01.2019.
2. The petitioner is presently working as an HSST(Economics) in a school under the management of the 4 th respondent. The petitioner originally joined the said school on 22.06.2004 as a High School Assistant(HSA) in Hindi. While so, the school was upgraded as a Higher Secondary School during the academic year 2010-11, by sanctioning two higher secondary batches. The petitioner claims that she is entitled to be appointed to the post of HSST Economics and Commerce. But overlooking her claim, a fresh appointment was made, by appointing one Girija V.K. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached the statutory authorities, and by 2025:KER:68953 W.P.(C). No.25796 of 2022 :4: Ext.P1 order, the Government has issued a direction to the 4th respondent Manager to appoint the petitioner in the post of HSST(Economics) in the subject school. Pursuant to the direction issued in Ext.P1, the 3 rd respondent issued Ext.P2 communication to the 4th respondent Manager, directing him to appoint the petitioner in accordance with Ext.P1. Ext.P1 order was challenged by Smt.Girija V.K., filing W.P.(C)No.30707 of 2014, which was allowed by this Court as per Ext.P3 judgment, by setting aside Ext.P1 order. An appeal was preferred against the same, and Ext.P3 judgment was reversed, and a direction was issued as per Ext.P4 judgment to issue consequential orders within three months. Exts.P5 and P6 are the directions issued by the Educational Authorities to the Manager to comply with the above- mentioned directions. While so, Smt. Girija V.K. Challenged Ext.P4 judgment before the Apex Court, filing Civil Appeal No.11829 of 2018 and the same was dismissed as per Ext.P7. The specific direction issued by the Apex Court in Ext.P7 reads as follows:
"25. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the appellant has no right to hold the post of Higher 2025:KER:68953 W.P.(C). No.25796 of 2022 :5: Secondary School Teacher (Economics) and on the said post, the respondent is to be appointed as per the direction of the State Government and affirmed by the Division Bench. We, thus, direct the management to appoint the respondent on or before 31-12-2018 so as to enable the respondent to join her post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Economics) w.e.f. 1-1-2019."
(underline supplied) Going by the said direction in Ext.P7 judgment, the Court held that Smt.Girija V.K. has no right to hold the post of HSST(Economics) and on the said post, the petitioner is to be appointed as per the directions of the State Government and affirmed by the Division Bench and directed the Management to appoint the petitioner on or before 31.12.2018 so as to enable the petitioner to join her post of Higher Secondary School Teacher(Economics) with effect from 01.01.2019. Now by Ext.P8, the approval of appointment was given with effect from 01.01.2019. The petitioner would submit that Ext.P8 was issued, totally against the direction issued by the Apex Court in Ext.P7. Against Ext.P8, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P9 appeal, which was dismissed as per Ext.P10. Ext.P11 revision was 2025:KER:68953 W.P.(C). No.25796 of 2022 :6: also preferred by the petitioner before the 1 st respondent, and the same was also dismissed as per Ext.P13. It is in the above- mentioned circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P8, P10 and P13 orders. The petitioner relies on the judgments of this Court in Poulose E.A. v. Assistant Education Officer, Malappuram and others [2017 KHC 294], N.Radhakrshnan Nair v. State of Kerala [2008 KHC 4748] and Ananthakumari V. v. State of Kerala and others [2017 KHC 256] in support of her contentions.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner was appointed only with effect from 01.01.2019, and she cannot claim any monetary benefits and that before 01.01.2019, Smt. Girija V.K. was working in the said post and has been drawing salary.
4. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
5. In Ext.P7 judgment, the Apex Court has clearly held that Smt. Girija V.K. has no right to hold the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Economics) and in the said post, the petitioner is to be 2025:KER:68953 W.P.(C). No.25796 of 2022 :7: appointed as per the direction of the State Government and affirmed by the Division Bench. The direction of the State Government is Ext P1, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
"In the circumstances, the Order No.A2/9926/13 dated 22.02.2014 of the RDD. Kannur and the letter No.Acd. A1/1043/HSE-WP(c)/13 dated 07.07.2014 of the Director of Higher Secondary Education, which are read as 1 st and 4th papers above are quashed with immediate effect. The Manager, Kasdachire Higher Secondary School, Kadachira is directed to appoint the Revision petitioner, Smi, Reshma Parayil as HSST (Economics) under 25% by transfer quota immediately, if she is otherwise eligible. The Director of Higher Secondary Education and RDD, Kannur will ensure that the Manager appoint the Revision Petitioner as HSST (Economics) as stated above"
So, the petitioner ought to have been appointed in the place of Smt. Girija from the date on which she was appointed as HSST (Economics), based on the direction issued by the Government. The Apex Court in Ext P7 judgment directed the authorities to appoint the petitioner on or before 31.12.2018 so as to enable her to join the post w.e.f. 01.01.2019. The direction of the Apex Court to appoint the petitioner as per the direction of the State Government, which is affirmed by the Division Bench, coupled with the further direction to appoint the petitioner on or before 31.12.2018 so as to enable her to join the post w.e.f. 01.01.2019 2025:KER:68953 W.P.(C). No.25796 of 2022 :8: can only be understood that the petitioner should be appointed without any delay so as to join duty, but the said direction cannot be implemented so as to take away the right of the petitioner for being appointed on the date on which Smt. Girija V.K. was illegally appointed to the post of HSST (Economics), as has been done by the impugned orders.
6. It is settled law that if an employee is kept out of work or denied his rightful place by an illegal order or where authorities have acted malevolently to deny an officer his promotion or where the authority has, in disobedience of a direction of a competent Court, denied the officer what is due to him, he would be entitled to get pecuniary and financial benefits even for the period when he was kept out of service by such illegality. This Court in Poulose E. A. v. Assistant Education Officer, Malappuram and Others, 2017 KHC 294, has held in paragraph 8 as follows:
"8. The declaration of law by this Court is absolutely clear. This Court has held that when a promotee is kept out of work or denied his rightful place by an illegal order or where authorities have acted malevolently to deny an officer his promotion or where the authority has, in disobedience of a direction of a competent Court, denied the officer what is due to him, he would 2025:KER:68953 W.P.(C). No.25796 of 2022 :9: be entitled to get pecuniary and financial benefits even for the period when he was kept out of service by such illegality."
The Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India and Others (2015 KHC 4545) has held that the principle of 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb and the matter will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis and when retrospective promotions are effected, all benefits flowing therefrom, including monetary benefits, must be extended to an employee who has been denied promotion earlier. This Court in N.Radhakrshnan Nair v. State of Kerala [2008 KHC 4748] has held that when the Manager has wilfully denied promotion to the teacher, he is entitled to be paid all his dues from the date when he was entitled to be promoted and for the reason that the Manager has illegally denied him such appointment, the teacher cannot be deprived of his entitlement. This Court, further, in Ananthakumari V. v. State of Kerala and others [2017 KHC 256] has held that when the employee has been illegally denied the benefit of appointment and dragged through avoidable 2025:KER:68953 W.P.(C). No.25796 of 2022 : 10 : litigation and eventually was appointed under a judicial compulsion, there is no occasion for any laches on the part of the employee and even if the Statute does not provide for grant of monetary benefits retrospectively it is a matter of equity and discretion of the Government and in such circumstances, the benefit is to be extended retroactively and the principle of "no work no pay" need not be applied. This Court in State of Kerala v. Jayakrishnaraj G (2024 (6) KLT 600) has held that if a government servant is arbitrarily denied due promotion, that would amount to acknowledging arbitrariness and cases involving the arbitrary denial of promotion must be addressed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India rather than statutory service rules and further held that reason for denial of promotion is not artibutrable to the employee, full benefits including monetary benefits must be granted.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed to the said post in the place of Smt. Girija, the eligibility of which was declared by the Apex Court as per Ext.P7. Legitimate right of the 2025:KER:68953 W.P.(C). No.25796 of 2022 : 11 : petitioner for appointment as HSST(Economics) was illegally denied by the Manager and the same was not due to any fault on the part of the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been appointed from the date on which Smt. Girija V.K. was appointed to the post of HSST(Economics) with all attendant statutory and monetary benefits.
8. Therefore, Exts.P8, P10 and P13 orders to the extent it directed the appointment of the petitioner only with effect from 01.01.2019 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the date on which Smt. Girija V.K. was appointed overlooking the claim of the petitioner, with all attendant benefits including seniority and arrears of pay and allowances.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sm/ 2025:KER:68953 W.P.(C). No.25796 of 2022 : 12 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25796/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER - G.O.(RT) NO.4706/2014/G.EDN DATED 01.11.2014 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A9/1700/2014 DATED 24.11.2014 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2015 IN W.P(C) NO.30707 OF 2014 (K) OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 17.08.2016 IN W.A.NO.1504 OF 2015 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A7/5044/RDDKNR/2016 DATED 06.10.2016 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.865091/T2/2016/GEDN DATED 17.10.2016 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS Exhibit P7 TRUE PRINTOUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2018 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11829 OF 2018 AS REPORTED IN (2019) 2 SCC 347 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A7/129/2019/K.DIS DATED 25.02.2019 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 22.05.2019 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A.C.D.A1/1043/2013/H.S.E DATED 23.02.2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED 22.07.2022 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT 2025:KER:68953 W.P.(C). No.25796 of 2022 : 13 : Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 10.09.2021 IN W.P(C) NO.18517 OF 2021 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF ORDER - G.O (ORDINARY) NO.
1096/2022/GEDN DATED 24.02.2022 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P14 True copy of order - G.O.(Rt) No.5966/2015/G.Edn. dated 21.12.2015 issued by 1st respondent along with its readable copy Exhibit P15 True copy of Judgment dated 17.08.2023 in W.P.(C) No.3407 of 2019 before this Hon'ble Court