IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20456 of 2008(I) PETITIONER: ------------ K.M.SREEDHARAN, RETD. HEAD MASTER OF PALLIPROM U.P.SCHOOL, MUNDAYAR P.O., KANNUR NORTH, (AGED 63, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, SREENILAYAM, CHELORA, MOWENCHERY, KANNUR-13) BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 4. ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR NORTH. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMMED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 20456 OF 2008 I -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant on 1.7.1968. He was promoted as Headmaster on 1.6.1992. It is stated that on 1.7.1993, having completed 25 years, the petitioner got selection grade. Petitioner retired from service on 30.4.2000. Ext.P1 is the pay fixation order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer, Kannur North. The audit party under the second respondent objected to Ext.P1, according to the petitioner, without notice to him. Certain objections were raised in Ext.P2, by which, the petitioner is affected. It is stated that the petitioner made several representations, but those representations were not properly considered. 2. Petitioner states that in the case of one K.V.Ramani, who entered service on 30.7.1968 and who was appointed as Headmistress on 19.12.1992, and who was granted selection grade along with the petitioner on 1.7.1993, audit objection similar to Ext.P2 was raised. Ramani challenged the same in O.P.No.5746 of 2002, which was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 13.7.2006, whereby the order impugned was quashed and the authorities were directed to consider the matter afresh in the light of the relevant Government Orders. The W.P.(C) NO.20456 OF 2008 :: 2 :: petitioner states that consequent on Ext.P3 judgment, the pay fixation in the case of Ramani was restored as per Ext.P4 order dated 25.8.2007, passed by the Assistant Educational Officer. 3. The petitioner submits that he is also entitled to the same treatment as that was meted out to Ramani and that the fact situations in both the cases are similar. Pointing out all these facts and also producing all the relevant orders, petitioner has submitted Ext..P8 representation dated 19.5.2008, to respondents 1 to 4. Ext.P8 is not disposed of so far. 4. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “i) Call for records connecting Exts.P1, P2 and P4 to P8 from the respondent concerned; ii) Call for Ext.P2 from 2nd respondent and issue writ of certiorari to quash the same; iii) Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 4 to disburse the benefits under Ext.P1 to the petitioner with all consequential benefits; iv) Such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper; and v) Award cost to the petitioner.” 5. As an interim relief, the petitioner has prayed that the first respondent may be directed to dispose of Ext.P8 representation in the W.P.(C) NO.20456 OF 2008 :: 3 :: light of Exts.P4 to P6 and the other relevant Government Orders. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, for the time being, the petitioner would be satisfied if Ext.P8 is directed to be disposed of by the first respondent, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and taking into account the proceedings in the case of Ramani and also taking note of the Government Orders. The counsel submits that the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition may be reserved to be agitated at appropriate time. Learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P8 will be disposed of by the first respondent without much delay. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner: a) The first respondent shall dispose of Ext.P8 representation as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. b) The petitioner shall produce certified copy of the judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition before the first respondent. W.P.(C) NO.20456 OF 2008 :: 4 :: c) The right of the petitioner in respect of the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are left open to be considered at appropriate stage in appropriate proceedings. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/