IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 613 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.40236/2003 Dated 19/02/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHERPU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.V.INDIRA, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, R.M.L.P.SCHOOL, ARATTUPUZHA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE MANASGSER, R.M.L.P.SCHOOL, ARATTUPUZHA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.V.RAJENDRAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.613 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 5th April, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following : The first respondent herein was the writ petitioner. She was working as a Lower Primary School Assistant, in the second respondent's school. As a result of division fall, she became a surplus hand, with effect from 15.7.1997. Since she had nine years' service to her credit, she was entitled to get protection. But, there was some delay from the part of the officials to deploy her. Actually, the deployment never took place and finally, when another vacancy arose in the school on 1.6.1998, she was accommodated in it. The first respondent was entitled to get salary for the period from 15.7.1997 to 1.6.1998. But, her motion in this regard was rejected by the statutory authorities. The Government also rejected her claim, as per Exts.P4 and P7. Challenging those orders and seeking consequential reliefs, the Writ Petition was filed. 3. As per the relevant orders governing protection, the first respondent/writ petitioner was entitled to get salary for the aforementioned period. But, the appellants herein resisted the Writ Petition, contending that since the first respondent was not deployed, WA NO.613/2010 2 she is not eligible to get salary. 4. The learned Single Judge took the view that it was for the officials to deploy her and utilise her services. For the failure of the officials to do that, the first respondent cannot be penalised. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition was allowed. Challenging the said judgment, the respondents have preferred this Writ Appeal. 5. We heard Sri.Benny Gervasis, learned Senior Government Pleader, for the appellants. Once the first respondent is found to be eligible for protection, she is entitled to get salary, irrespective of the fact whether she is deployed or not. It is for the Deputy Director of Education concerned, to deploy her and utilise her services. If the said officer has failed to do that, the first respondent cannot be denied salary. In view of the above position, the Writ Appeal fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.613 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 5th April, 2010.