IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31741 of 2007(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.K.PRADEEP, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE KESAVAN, POZHIKKAL KANDATHIL HOUSE, ARATTUVAZHY WARD, ALAPPEY NORTH P.O. ALAPPUZHA-688 007 (DRAWING TEACHER, MOTHER THERESA HIGH SCHOOL, MUHAMMA, ALAPPUZHA) BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 1. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 1. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA – 688 001. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFIER, CHERTHALA – 688 524. 5. THE MANAGER, MOTHER THERESA HIGH SCHOOL, MUHAMMA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 525. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T,MHAMMED FOR R1 TO R4 ADV. SRI.BOBY MATHEW FOR R.5 SRI.E.T.MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.31741/2007 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS.B2/7964/92 DTD. 28/07/1992 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 1/09/1992 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P1. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DTD. 20/08/1992 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P1. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS.30088/92/DDE(A) DTD. 12/01/1993 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30/07/1991 IN O.P.NO.3041 OF 1991 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.525/95/G.EDN. DTD. 28/10/1995 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DTD. 25/01/1993 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DTD. 8/2/1993 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS.20612/93/RA(1)DPI DTD.31/5/1993 ISSUED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DTD. 2/07/1993 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DTD. 1/07/1993 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 17/09/1999 IN O.P.NO.23366 OF 1999 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.4020/2000/G.EDN. DTD. 3/10/2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 27/11/2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Kss ...2/- ...2..... WPC.NO.31741/2007 D EXT.P15: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.52364/R1/2000/G.EDN. DTD. 20/01/2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS.53-5625/2000 DTD. 30/08/2000 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.2278/99/FIN. DTD. 17/11/1999 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.112/2001/G.EDN. DTD. 26/03/2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P19: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 18/10/2006 IN OP.NO.13136 OF 2001 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT. EXT.P20: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.18282007/G.EDN. DTD. 25/04/2007 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P21: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D3 5825/05 DTD. 21/06/2007 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P22: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 1/08/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 31741 OF 2007 D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of October 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that since 1987 he has been working as a Drawing Teacher in the school of which the 5th respondent is the Manager. By Ext. P1, for the year 1992-93 the post was abolished for want of sufficient periods. Appeals filed by the Manager and the petitioner before the 3rd respondent were rejected by Ext. P4. Revisions were filed before the 2nd respondent by both the Manager and the Teacher resulted in Ext. P9 order of rejection. Further revisions filed before the 1st respondent by both, resulted in Ext. P13 order, in which the post of Drawing Teacher was ordered to be restored during the year 1992-93 as a special case exercising the Government's power under Rule 3, Chapter I, K.E.R. 2. Challenging the aforesaid orders an original petition was filed before this Court as O.P. No. 13136/01. That O.P. was disposed of by Ext. P19 judgment, quashing the impugned orders W.P.(C) No. 31741 OF 2007 -2- and directing reconsideration of the matter in the light of the judgment in O.P. No. 12125/93. Accordingly, the Government re- considered the claim of the petitioner and passed Ext. P20, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “In the circumstances, Government are pleased to restore the post of Drawing Teacher in the Mother Theresa High School, Muthamma, Alappuzha for the year 1992-93. The District Educational Officer, Alappuzha is directed to approve the appointment of Shri. K.K. Pradeep as Drawing Teacher in the restored post provided he is eligible for the same and he will grant consequential benefits due to him since the date of abolition of the post.” Petitioner submits that in pursuance to Ext. P20, the D.E.O., passed Ext. P21 order that payment due till 15.7.1993 has already been made and that he will be paid the arrears for the period subsequent to 15.7.1993. Even thereafter, arrears were not paid and therefore the petitioner submitted Ext. P22 representation. Still there was no progress in the matter and that led the petitioner to file the writ petition. 3. The justification given by respondents 1 and 3 in the counter affidavits is that, by Ext. P20 order, the post was restored W.P.(C) No. 31741 OF 2007 -3- only for the year 1992-93. According to them, therefore the petitioner's entitlement for monetary benefits is confined to that year alone and that the same has been paid. It is on this basis, they are seeking to justify the non-payment of the monetary benefits for the subsequent period as claimed by the petitioner. 4. The Manager, on the other hand, has filed a counter affidavit and would support the case of the petitioner. According to him, though the post was abolished in 1992-93, in the subsequent years, there has not been any drop in the number of divisions. He would therefore submit that till 2006-07, when the petitioner was appointed again, in view of the fact that there has not been any drop in the number of periods, petitioner is entitled to the monetary benefits. 5. I have considered the submissions made. As already noticed, the claim of the petitioner is that monetary and other benefits for the period from 1992-93 onwards should be paid, following Ext. P20 order. However, a reading of Ext. P20 shows that the restoration of the post of Drawing Teacher in the school ordered by Ext. P20 is only for the year 1992-93. If that be so, the W.P.(C) No. 31741 OF 2007 -4- contention of the learned Govt. Pleader that the petitioner's entitlement under Ext. P20 is only for 1992-93 deserves acceptance. 6. However, relying on the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Joseph Ceasar {1998(2) KLT 194}, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled to similar treatment for the subsequent years as well. It was also contended that it was not on account of his fault that the post was wrongly abolished in 1992-93 and therefore it is unfair to deprive him of the monetary and other benefits for the subsequent years. He is also relying on the figures mentioned by the Manager in his counter affidavit to contend for the position that there has not been any drop in the divisions for the period subsequent to 1992-93. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner should be awarded monetary and other benefits from 1992-93 onwards. 7. However, learned Govt. Pleader submits that even inspite of the figures supplied by the Manager, there is nothing to indicate that there was anything for more than 4 periods for sanctioning a W.P.(C) No. 31741 OF 2007 -5- post of Drawing Teacher. According to him, therefore, there is no justification for the demand now made and in any case, as per Ext. P20 the petitioner's entitlement is confined to the year 1992-93. 8. As already noticed, the Government Order restoring the post is confined to 1992-93. The figures and other details for the subsequent years have not been considered by the Government while issuing Ext. P20. According to the petitioner and the Manager, the division and the number of periods for the years subsequent to 1992-93, justified the continued restoration of the post. It is a matter for the Government to consider, after taking note of all relevant facts for that purpose. Therefore, I leave it open to the petitioner and the Manager to pursue the claim before the Government so that the Government can bestow their attention to the claim made in this writ petition and pass appropriate orders thereon. 9. The petitioner will be free to file an appropriate application before the government urging his claim for continued restoration of the post of Drawing Teacher in the school subsequent to 1992-93, in which case the Government shall consider the same and pass W.P.(C) No. 31741 OF 2007 -6- orders thereon. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-