Kerala High Court
Vimala C.Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 2 July, 2021
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 21391 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
VIMALA C.JOSEPH
W/O.BOBY, AGED 42 YEARS, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
TEACHER JUNIOR (PHYSICS), ST.SEBASTIAN'S HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL NORTH PARAVUR, RESIDING AT
MANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKEKARA P.O, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN
-683 522.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001
2 THE DIRECTOR
HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
SANTHINAGAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION
ERNAKULAM.
4 THE CORPORATE MANAGER
CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF
KOTTAPPURAM,P.O.KOTTAPPURAM, KODUNGALLUR, PIN-680 667.
SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21391 OF 2015
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be working as a Higher Secondary School Teacher (Jr) in Physics in the "St.Sebastian's Higher Secondary School, North Paravur. She has approached this Court impugning Ext.P6 order, as per which, her request for rectification of an anomaly in her fixation of pay, in the cadre of HSST (Jr), has been rejected by the Director of Higher Secondary Education citing the reason that it is on account of the difference in the date of option exercised by her that such an anomaly has arisen and therefore that her plea for stepping up of her pay to be at par with her junior cannot be considered.
2. The petitioner says that Ext.P6 is completely without basis because it has not taken into account the fact that she was promoted as a Higher Secondary School Teacher (Physics) on 16.06.2004, in a leave vacancy of a teacher by name Elsy V.K. and that she was reverted as HSST (Jr) only on 01.04.2009. She says that, therefore, her scale of pay in HSST (Jr) in the 2004 Pay Revision scale could not have been fixed any time prior to 01.04.2009 since until then she was working as an HSST in Physics. The petitioner says that without adverting to these vital facts, Ext.P6 has been issued and thus prays that the WP(C) NO. 21391 OF 2015 3 same be set aside.
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.P.M.Manoj, in response to the submissions of the petitioner as made by her learned counsel Smt.C.M.Charisma, submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent wherein the following have been stated.
"3. The petitioner was initially appointed as HSST (Jr) Physics in St.Sebastian's HSS, Ernakulam with effect from 03.10.2000 and the said appointments was approved by DHSE vide order No.Acd A1/14789/20001/HSE dated 11.01.2003. While working as HSST (Jr) the petitioner was promoted as HSST (Physics) from 16.06.2004 to 31.03.2009 in the leave vacancy of Smt.Elsy V.K. and said appointment was approved by DHSE vide order No.Acd A6 14789/2001/HSE dated 11.09.2005. The petitioner was reverted as HSST (Jr) Physics with effect from 01.04.2009 & again promoted as HSST (Physics) for the period from 01.06.2010 to 31.03.2015 against the vacancy of Smt.Elsy E.K. HSST Physics and continued as such upto 31.07.2014.
4. It can be seen that the pay revision 2004 came into effect from 01.07.2004. The petitioner's date of option was 01.04.2009 and her basic pay was fixed as Rs.11910 as on 1.04.09. However if the petitioner had opted the date as 01.10.2008, her basic pay will be Rs.11910 on 01.10.2008. And hence as per revision 2009 her basic pay will be Rs.22360/- on 01.10.2009 and her pay will be Rs.25280/- on 01.10.2014 which would be as that of same Sri.Sony Raphael.
5. Therefore it is to be noted that the anomaly arised due to the option exercised on different dates. The opinion date once exercised is final. It cannot be changed. It was the duty of the petitioner to opt the correct date so as to ensure maximum salary benefits."
4. It is thus evident from the submissions of the learned WP(C) NO. 21391 OF 2015 4 Senior Government Pleader that the stand of the official respondents is that since the Pay Revision order came into effect on 01.07.2004, the petitioner ought to have exercised option on 01.10.2008, but that since she exercised option only on 01.04.2009, the anomaly was bound to happen. However, what is relevant in this case is the fact that the petitioner was working as an HSST in Physics until 31.03.2009, when she was reverted as HSST (Jr), on account of the closure of leave vacancy of another teacher by name Elsy V.K. Obviously therefore, there is some merit in the contentions of the petitioner that she could not have exercised option prior to 01.04.2009 with respect to the 2004 Pay Revision in the HSST (Jr) scale and I notice that this has not been considered by any of the Authorities, including in Ext.P6.
5. I am, therefore, of the firm view that Ext.P6 cannot find my favour and that the matter will have to be reconsidered by the Director of Higher Secondary Education appropriately, after adverting to the specific contention of the petitioner as afore.
6. In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P6 is set aside; with a consequential direction to the WP(C) NO. 21391 OF 2015 5 respondent - Director of Higher Secondary Education to reconsider the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner - either physically or through video conferencing - thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, adverting to the above specific contention of the petitioner, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, once orders are issued in terms of the afore directions, all eligible benefits shall also be given to the petitioner, if found deserving, without any avoidable delay thereafter.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 21391 OF 2015 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21391/2015 PETITIONER EXHIBITS:
P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 3.10.2000 P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.6.2010 OF 4TH RESPONDENT.
P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.9.2010 P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.11.14 SENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO 1ST RESPONDENT.
P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.3.2015 IN WPC. NO.8381/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.6.2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.