IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 738 of 2008(G) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3842/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 5th RESPONDENT ---------------------- THE MANAGER CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOLS DIOCESE OF MUVATTUPUZHA PIRAVOM 686 664. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANIE N.JOHN, H.S.A.(PHYSICAL SCIENCE) ST.JOSEPH HIGH SCHOOL, PIRAVOM ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALUVA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN ADV. ELVIN PETER P.J. FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- R.P.No.738 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 ORDER The Writ Petition was disposed of on 4th June 2008. The grievance of the Writ Petitioner was that Ext.P2 order passed by the Government directing approval of the transfer appointment of the Writ Petitioner was not being implemented. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader submitted that based on Ext.P2 order, the District Educational Officer had issued an order dated 2.2.2008. Recording the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the Manager to implement the order dated 2.2.2008 passed by the District Educational Officer. 2. The Manager has filed this Review Petition wherein it is stated that the order passed by the District Educational Officer is not correct and the lien cannot be adjusted as stated in the order dated 2.2.2008. It is stated in paragraph 12 to 15 of the Review Petition thus: “12. The above stand/view of the D.E.O. is not correct and it cannot be enforced or done and RP No.738/2008 2 this and other aspects mentioned in this R.P. Could not be brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court since my counsel was not present when the above case was called. My counsel had entrusted the case to his junior on that day but unfortunately by oversight he forgot to attend the case. 13. The above stand/review of the D.E.O. is not correct because lien can be only to a sanctioned post or to the above anticipated additional post and there was no vacant sanctioned post of H.S.A.(PS) from 5.6.2006 to 31.12.2007 under our Corporate Management. In DEO's order dated 2.2.2008 there was no direction to Manager and petitioner in the above Writ Petition had no case to implement it. 14. Moreover since junior most H.S.A.(PS) was eligible for protection she was paid the salary for the period from 5.6.2006 to 31.12.2007. So the lien of Anie N. John cannot be adjusted to the above period. 15. Under the above mentioned circumstances the view taken by the D.E.O. that he will pay the arrears of salary of Anie N.John only when Manager adjusts her lien for the above period is not correct and the D.E.O. cannot take such a stand and he is bound to pay the arrears of salary of Annie N.John for the above period in the light of Ext.P2 and the approval of Anie N.John's transfer from 5.6.2006.” 3. Heard the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner. The question of implementing the order dated 2.2.2008 passed by the District Educational Officer was not an issue in the Writ Petition. The question to be considered in the Writ Petition was whether RP No.738/2008 3 the Writ Petitioner was entitled to get the order passed by the Government implemented. The Writ Petitioner had also prayed for payment of the arrears of salary. In view of the questions involved in the Writ Petition, for proper disposal of the Writ Petition, it was not necessary to direct the Manager to implement the order dated 2.2.2008 passed by the District Educational Officer. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the Review Petition is allowed. The following sentences in the last paragraph of the judgment shall stand deleted, namely, “For that purpose the Manager has to implement order dated 2.2.2008 passed by the District Educational Officer, Muvattupuzha. The Manager shall do the needful within a period of one month”. The judgment shall be in force in all other aspects except the deletion of the two sentences mentioned above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl