IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 WA.No. 2038 of 2008() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15171/2006 Dated 25/10/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT NO.4 IN WP(C) ------------------------ THE CORPORATE MANAGER, ST. FRANCIS SCHOOLS, MATTOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) SRI.DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENT 1 TO 3 ---------------------------- 1. JOJU.M.A, S/O. ALPHONSE.M.T, AGED 34 YEARS, PEON, ST. FRANCIS GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, MATTOM, RESIDING AT MALIAMAVE HOUSE, MATTOM.P.O, THRISSUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO FOR R1 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GEVACIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, ALONG WITH W.A. NO.2039 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- W.A.Nos.2038 & 2039 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 24th October, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . The writ petitioners were appointed in the appellant's school on 8.6.2001 and 11.6.2001 respectively by the then Manager. There was a dispute regarding the management of the school. When new Manager came, services of the petitioners were terminated without any valid reasons. They approached this court. A Division Bench of this court found that their termination was illegal and arbitrary and they should be reinstated. The above judgment was passed on 8th January, 2004. Thereafter, there was delay in reinstating the petitioners and they initiated contempt proceedings. In the above proceedings, it was submitted that the petitioners were reinstated. It was also submitted that they will be given `due benefits from the date of the original appointment'. Those submissions were recorded and the contempt case was closed. The undertaking was that the due benefits like continuity of service etc. will be given. However, the salary for the period when they were out of service were not paid. Hence, they approached this court again. A learned single Judge of this court held that they are entitled to salary. Review petition was also dismissed. All benefits during the W.A.Nos.2038 & 2039/2008 2 period of involuntary unemployment includes salary. Their unemployment was due to the fault of the appellant and, therefore, the learned Judge directed to pay the salary to the petitioners without delay leaving open to the DEO to recover the same from the Manager, if rule permits. We are of the view that benefits during the period of involuntary unemployment includes salary. They were prevented from working. It cannot be equated to a case of `no work no pay'. There is no case that they were employed elsewhere during the period. In the above circumstances, we see no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment. Both appeals are dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE tks