IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23395 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.RASLATH, ASSISTANT TEACHER, A.M.U.P.SCHOOL, VETTATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MELATTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 23395/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE FORM OF OPTION DTD.10.2.99. P2. COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION DTD.17.3.99. P3. COPY OF THE HIGHER GRADE OPTION DTD.26.11.2000. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.19.12.03. P5. COPY OF THE REVISED HIGHER GRADE FIXATION DTD.19.12.03. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.28.4.09. P7. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 8942/2003. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 23395 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in an aided school. In accordance with her option for 1998 pay revision, her pay was fixed by Ext.P2 and she was also granted stepping up of pay on par with her junior as per Ext.P4. She was also granted higher grade as per Ext.P3. However, Ext.P2 fixation of pay was cancelled on the basis of the audit objections of the 1st respondent. Based on the same, the grade granted to the petitioner was also refixed. Consequently, the excess amount drawn by the petitioner was refunded and revised option for higher grade in lieu of Ext.P3 was accepted as per Exts.P4 and P5. The petitioner now submits that that order has now been unilaterally cancelled by Ext.P6 without giving the petitioner a notice or hearing taking away the entire fixation benefits granted to her as per Exts.P2 to P5. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 seeking the following reliefs; “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 and quash the same; b) Declaring that the petitioner is entitled to enjoy the benefits under Exts.P4 and P5; c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to continue the extend (sic) benefits of Exts.P4 and P5 to the petitioner untagged by Ext.P6.” w.p.c.23395/09 2 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent justifying the action of the respondents. But nothing is mentioned in the counter affidavit as to the specific contention raised by the petitioner that Ext.P6 was passed without any notice or hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, I am inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P6 order was passed without notice or hearing to the petitioner. Ext.P6 results in very serious civil consequences to the petitioner, which could not have been done without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Therefore, Ext.P6 order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. On that ground, Ext.P6 is quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner. The 1st respondent shall reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge