IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21310 of 2005(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P. SARAMMA, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. LATE V.C. CHACKO, KURICHIMALA HOUSE, P.O. VELLOOR, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (U.P.S.A., C.M.S. HIGH SCHOOL, KANAM.). BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANJIRAPALLY AT PONKUNNAM. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SHRI.T.T.MOHAMOOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO. 21310/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE STATEMENT FIXATION OOF PAY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 06/10/1995. P2 : COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY DATED 01/02/2005. P3 : COPY OF THE GOVERNMETN CIRCULAR NO.J2/52373/88/G.EDN. DATED 06/03/1998. P4 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE AUDIT REPORT DATED NIL. P5 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21/02/2005. P6 : COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED 22/09/1990. P7 : COPY OF the JUDGMENT IN OP NO.36489/2000 DATED 13/12/2004. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.21310 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had rendered provisional service for various spills of time during the period from 07/08/1982 to 19/04/1986. It was counting the said provisional service that she was granted higher grade as per Exts.P1 and P2, and that was objected by the audit as per Exts.P4 & P5. It is in this context, the writ petition is filed. 2. The eligibility for the aforesaid provisional services to be counted for higher grade has already been accepted by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1224/2005, and following that judgment, several other cases also have been disposed of . 3. The learned Government Pleader contended for the position that to have the provisional services reckoned in terms of the conditions of Decision No.2, Rule 33, Part-I, K.S.R., the qualification and method of appointment should also be similar. However, this contention has already been raised in identical factual WP(C) No.21310/2005 -2- situation and has already been rejected by the Division Bench of this Court as per the judgment referred to above. 4. The facts being identical, I am satisfied that the petitioner also is entitled to the relief thus granted. 5. Accordingly, Exts.P4 & P5 will stand set aside and it is declared that Exts.P1 and P2 orders granting higher grade to the petitioner reckoning the provisional services are legal and the petitioner is entitled to the benefits thereunder. Needless to say that consequential benefits shall be released to the petitioner within a period of three months of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg