IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 3781 of 2005(A) PETITIONERS: 1. N.SATHIAN, TEACHER, IRINGOTH U.P.SCHOOL, MELADY SUB DISTRICT RESIDENT AT NELLIKANDAVIDE CHERUVANNOOR P.O., (VIA) P.O.MEPAYOOR, (KOZHIKODE DISTRICT). 2. V.M.PRADEEPAN, TEACHER, VILAYATTUR ELAMPILAD M.U.P.SCHOOL, RESIDING AT VEKILATHUMEETHAL, P.O.CHERUVANNOOR, (VIA) P.O.MEPAYUR (KOZHIKODE DISTRICT). 3. R.VINOD KUMAR, TEACHER, MUYIPOTH M.U.P.SCHOOL, P.O.MUYIPOTH, RESIDING AT REYAROTH P.O., CHERUVANNOOR, (VIA P.O.MEPAYUR, (KOZHIKODE DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN SRI.P.NAIJAL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA- NOTICE FOR WHOM MAY BE SERVED TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MELADY EDUCATION SUB DISTRICT, P.O.MELADY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, IRINGOTH U.P.SCHOOL, P.O.MELADY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGER, VILAYATTUR ELAMPILAD M.U.P.SCHOOL, P.O.CHERUVANNOOR, (VIA) P.O.MEPAYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. WP(C) 3781/2005 :2: 5. THE MANAGER, MUYIPOTH M.U.P.SCHOOL, P.O.MUYIPOTH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K. SANIL KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 3781/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(RT.) NO. 1450/91/GE DATED 3.5.1991 RELATING TO SMT. SREEJA, ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. GO(MS) No. 113/2000/G. EDN. DATED 6.4.2000, ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(RT.) NO.1980/2000/G. EDN. DATED 19.5.2000 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERMENT ORDER NO. GO(RT.) NO. 5202/2000/G. EDN. DATED 19.12.2000. EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT.) NO. 101/2001/G. EDN. DATED 8.1.2001. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO. 339/2001/G. EDN. DATED 24.1.2001. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO. 108/2001/G. EDN. DATED 23.3.2001. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 1179/2001/G. EDN. DATED 23.3.2001. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.8.2002 IN O.P. NO. 38308 OF 2001 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER WITH ENDORSEMENT OF APPROVAL BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MELADI DATED 28.12.1992. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMEN ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER WITH ENDORSEMENT OF APPROVAL BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MELADI, DATED 8.6.1993. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER WITH NDORSEMENT OF APPROVAL BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MELADI DATED 2.07.1992. WP(C) 3781/2005 :2: EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C/1208/04 DATED 8.3.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G3/36304/04/DPI DATED 31.5.2004 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G3/36303/04/DPI DATED 31.5.2004 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G3/36304/04/DPI DATED 31.5.2004 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPOSNDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NILL. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- WP(C) 3781/2005 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. = = = = = = = = == = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 3781 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are specialist teachers working in various aided schools in Kozhikode District, who commenced their services with effect from 28.12.1992, 8.6.1993 and 2.7.1992 respectively. In spite of several representations and such other proceedings, their appointments were not approved till Ext.P8 order was passed by the Government on 23.3.2001 wherein it was observed as follows: " xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx 3. Government have examined the case in detail and are pleased to approve the appointments of Sri. N. Sathyan as Drawing teacher, Iringath U.P. School, Sri. V.M. Pradeepan as Drawing teacher, Vilayatoor, Elampilad M.U.P. School and Sri. Vinodkumar R. as Drawing teacher in Muyipoth M.U.P. School in the posts that existed in their respective schools." Projecting the further grievance that no consequential orders were passed pursuant to Ext.P8, the petitioners approached this Court by filing O.P. No. 38308 of 2001, which culminated in Ext.P9 judgment, whereby the second respondent was directed to pass consequential orders on the claim of the petitioners for approval of their appointments on the basis of Ext.P8 order, in accordance with law, within one month as specified. It was also made WP(C) 3781/2005 2 clear by this Court that on approval of the appointment of the petitioners, the salary due to them shall be released within one month thereafter. The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to the above verdict of this Court, consequential orders were passed by the second respondent, however, granting approval with effect from 16.7.2001 and confining the benefit of salary only with effect from that date as borne by Exts. P10 to P12 appointment orders. Even though the petitioners sought to challenge the denial of salary with retrospective effect before the higher departmental authorities, the same did not turn up fruitful as evident from Ext.P14 to P16, which, in turn, are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no reason for restricting the benefit of salary to the petitioners with effect from 16.7.2001 and that the petitioners are entitled to have the salary with retrospective effect. Reliance is also sought to be placed on Exts.P1 to P7 Government orders whereby such benefits are extended to similarly situated persons. According to the petitioners, denial of the benefits, to which they are entitled to, is an instance of clear discrimination and bitter arbitrariness. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits, with reference to the contention in the counter WP(C) 3781/2005 3 affidavit filed, that no posts were existing in the concerned schools to have accommodated the petitioners, for giving approval with effect from retrospective date and to have given salary accordingly. It is pointed out that pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment, consequential orders were passed based on Ext. P8 Government order, whereby supernumerary specialist teacher posts were sanctioned in respect of staff fixation orders of the succeeding year to the respective schools and that the salary has been disbursed to the petitioners with effect from 16.7.2001. It is also stated that the continuation of the petitioners in the schools earlier was quite unauthorized and that the manager of the aided school had appointed the petitioners in irregular posts and hence their appointments cannot be approved with retrospective effect. 4. True, the petitioners might have been continuing as aforesaid, though such posts were not sanctioned and as such salary cannot be claimed as a matter of right. But the consequential orders (Exts. P10 to P12) passed by the concerned authorities (on the basis of Ext.P8 order passed by the Government deciding to approve the appointment) do not give any plausible explanation, as apparent from the records, to sustain the stand taken by the concerned respondents in limiting the benefit of salary to be with effect from 16.7.2001, in spite of the admitted fact that the petitioners were continuing in the school with effect from 1992-93. When WP(C) 3781/2005 4 reference is made in Exts.P10 to P12 that the approval was given with effect from 16.7.2001 (referring Government vide Ext.P8 order), this Court does not find any such observation stated as made by the Government in Ext.P8 order). It was the scope of the said order ie. Ext.P8, which was examined by this Court while passing Ext.P9 judgment, whereby the second respondent was directed to pass consequential orders making it clear that the salary shall be disbursed accordingly. Similarly, absolutely nothing is forthcoming from the part of the respondents with regard to the course pursued by the Government/authorities in respect of other persons similarly situated like the petitioners, giving the benefit of salary with retrospective effect as borne out by Exts.P1 to P7; but for stating that it was done only as a special case on "humanitarian consideration". The so called "humanitarian consideration" as projected by the learned Government Pleader, why happened to be not extended to the petitioners or whether there is anything 'inhuman' in their case, is not discernible from the materials on record. As it stands so, the reason for treating the petitioners, placing them on a different pedestal than the beneficiaries of Exts. P1 to P7, has necessarily to be examined by the Government, more so when Ext.P8 order granting approval, after taking note of the service of the petitioners from 1992-93 stipulates to have them accommodated in the posts "existed" WP(C) 3781/2005 5 in the concerned schools and obviously not with reference to any future vacancy. 5. In the above circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside and the first respondent is directed to consider the matter with regard to the extent of salary payable to the petitioners pursuant to Ext.P8 order granting approval, in the light of the contents of Ext.P9 judgment and also in the light of Exts. P1 to P7 orders granting benefits retrospectively to some others who are stated as similarly situated. Proceedings in this regard shall be finalised, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the first respondent finds that any amount is liable to be paid to the petitioners as above, the same shall be caused to be disbursed within a further period of two months thereafter. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. There will be no order as to costs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) KNC/-