IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20222 of 2004(G) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C.T.BEENA, L.G.HINDI TEACHER, HIGH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, KADAMPANAD, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.SAJU JOHN SRI.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,. OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA. 6. THE MANAGER, GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, KADAMPANAD, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 7. THE HEADMISTRESS, HIGH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, KADAMPANAD, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) NO.20222/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 12.6.1996 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER NO.D.DIS. 5060/97 DTD. 25.8.1997 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SC(1) 61786/97/DPI/D.DIS. DTD. 18.9.1998 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.14.10.1998. SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR THE YEAR 1997-1998 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD. 25.11.98. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS. B6-511/99 DTD. 4.3.1999 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION ON 0.3.1999 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT . P8:- COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.175/99/G.EDN. DTD. 26.7.1999. P9:- COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO. 240/99/G.EDN. DTD. 29.9.1999. P10:- COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 10.12.1999 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION. P11:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ET1/95350/99/DPI DTD. 22.12.1999 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P12:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2-10B11/99 DTD. 18.8.2000 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4-20999/98 DTD. 16.2.2001 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P14:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 2.11.2001 OF THE LOK AYUKTA IN THE COMPLAINT NO.799/2001 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P15:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/8356/01 DTD. 12.6.2003 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P16:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.51500/E1/01/G.EDN. DTD. 20.12.2002. P17:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 14.7.2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. P18:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2805/E1/03/G.EDN. DTD. 20.12.2003 OF THE GOVERNMENT. P19:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 19.1.2004 SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION. P20:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15.6.2004 OF THE HEADMISTRESS. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.20222/2004-G ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as L.G.Hindi Teacher in the Girls High School, Kadamapanad managed by the sixth respondent. The issue pertains to the retrenchment of the petitioner as per Ext.P6 with effect from 15/07/1997 and the consequential withholding of the benefits due to her. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as L.G.Hindi Teacher in a permanent vacancy on 12/06/1996 by the Manager. Ext.P1 is the copy of the appointment order and the endorsement therein shows that the appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer. Accordingly, the petitioner continued in service. 3. In the staff fixation for the year 1997-98, two posts of L.G.Hindi Teacher were sanctioned and, thus, the petitioner continued in service. Later, the Director of Public Instruction by order dated 18/09/1998 Ext.P3 directed modification of the staff fixation order reducing one post of L.G. Hindi Teacher, which was effected by the District Educational Officer as per Ext.P5 order dated 25/11/1998. For the year 1998-99 also, the District Educational Officer included only one post against the post of L.G.Hindi Teacher. The petitioner continued upto W.P.(C). No.20222/2004 -:2:- 04/03/1999 on which date Ext.P6 order was passed retrenching the petitioner with effect from 15/07/1997. She was relieved on the date of the said order. This was challenged by Ext.P7 in appeal. While that was pending, the Government issued two orders, namely, Exts.P8 and P9 granting protection to aided school teachers who were in service as on 14/07/1996 and those who were appointed as aided school teachers in regular vacancies during 1996-97 upto 14/07/1997. The petitioner claimed the benefit of those Government Orders by filing Ext.P10 representation before the Government which was forwarded to the Director of Public Instruction. As per Ext.P11 order, the Director of Public Instruction directed the District Educational Officer to examine the matter and, the District Educational Officer passed Ext.P12 order granting the benefit of protection and according sanction to release the salary and other allowances to the petitioner from 15/07/1997 to the date upto which she had actually worked or till 14/07/1999 whichever is earlier. This was set aside by the Deputy Director of Education taking the view that Exts.P8 and P9 orders are only prospective. Ext.P13 is the copy of the said order. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Lok Ayukta which was disposed of by Ext.P14. Again the District Educational Officer considered the matter by W.P.(C). No.20222/2004 -:3:- Ext.P15 wherein the finding is against the petitioner. This was challenged before the Government by the petitioner as per Ext.P17. Ext.P18 is the final communication issued by the Government rejecting her request which is under challenge along with other orders in the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view taken by the authorities to deny the benefit of Exts.P8 and P9 orders cannot be supported. It is pointed out that the orders have been passed to benefit those persons who were in service as on 14/07/1996. The date of Ext.P8 itself is 26/07/1999 and Ext.P9 is a clarification issued on 29/09/1999. 5. The operative portion of Ext.P8, mainly, paragraph (2) reads thus:- “2. Government have further examined the matter in detail and are pleased to order that all aided school teachers who were in service as on 14/07/1996 will be given protection by retaining them in the respective schools subject to the following conditions:- i. The teachers to whom this benefit of protection is granted will be absorbed in the future vacancies arising under the respective management. W.P.(C). No.20222/2004 -:4:- ii. No substitute will be posted in the case of retirement, resignation, death, leave or voluntary relinquishment, etc. of the incumbent, if retained by way of protection. iii. Protection will not be granted to teachers appointed during 1997-98 and thereafter.” This was clarified further by Ext.P9 Government Order wherein also in paragraph (2)(i) it was directed that:- “i. All aided school teachers who were in service as on 14/07/1996 and those who are appointed as aided school teachers against regular vacancies during 1996-97 upto 14/07/1997 will be eligible for protection. However, teachers appointed from 15/07/1997 onwards will not be eligible for protection.” Paragraph (2)(iii) of Ext.P9 directs that those who have been retrenched and who are eligible for protection will have to be reinstated in service in their parent school. 6. Thus, the idea behind Exts.P8 and P9 orders is very clear. The orders visibly refer to aided school teachers “who were in service as on 14/07/1996”. Therefore, it cannot be said that the benefit is granted W.P.(C). No.20222/2004 -:5:- only on a prospective basis from the date of issuance of Exts.P8 and P9. 7. What is necessary to find out is whether the teacher was in service as on 14/07/1996 and whether he/she is entitled for the benefit of protection. 8. The appointment of the petitioner was in a regular vacancy itself which appointment is approved going by Ext.P1 dated 12/06/1996. As she was in service as on 14/07/1996 she is entitled for the benefit of Exts.P8 and P9 orders granting protection. 9. In the light of the above, the view taken in Exts.P13, P15, P16 and P18, contrary to the above scheme, cannot be supported. The District Educational Officer had correctly applied the provisions of the Government Orders while passing Ext.P12. The reason stated by the Deputy Director of Education that these Government Orders, namely, Exts.P8 and P9, take effect prospectively cannot therefore be supported. 10. In view of the above objections, the salary of the petitioner has been withheld as per Ext.P15. Therefore, Ext.P15 also will have to go. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Exts.P8 and P9 orders granting protection. The order Ext.P12 is perfectly valid. Therefore, the petitioner will be entitled for the W.P.(C). No.20222/2004 -:6:- monetary benefits flowing therefrom for the period from 15/07/1997 to 04/03/1999. The petitioner was later appointed in a regular vacancy on 15/07/1999 and is continuing as such. 11. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Exts.P13, P15, P16, P18 and P20 are quashed. There will be a direction to the District Educational Officer to grant the benefits to the petitioner based on Ext.P12 order and the amount, if any, withheld will be released within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms