IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17781 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.RAJALAKSHMI, HEADMISTRESS, MANGATTIDAM UP SCHOOL, MANGATTIDAM.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOOTHUPARAMBA. 5. THE MANAGER, MANGATTIDAM UP SCHOOL, MANGATTIDAM.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SANDESH RAJA -R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.17781 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Mangattidam U.P School with effect from 30.7.1980. Subsequently, she was promoted as Head Mistress in a regular vacancy with effect from 1.4.1997. Her probation was declared on 30.11.1997. For the said purpose, the broken period of her service was taken into consideration. The pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.5500-9075. Subsequently, periodical increments were given to the petitioner with effect from 1.12.1997. While so, Ext.P1 was served on the petitioner directing her to repay the amount alleged to have been received by her in excess. The main objection raised therein was that sanction of increments with effect from 1.12.1997 is wrong. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal dated 7.2.2009 before the second respondent. On account of the delay in the matter of disposal of Ext.P4 appeal, she had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.9942/2009. The said Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext.P5 judgment and, consequently, Ext.P6 order was W.P.(C) NO.17781/2010 2 passed by the second respondent. As per Ext.P6, the second respondent concurred with the findings of the first respondent and rejected the said appeal. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition before the third respondent. Ext.P7 revision petition dated 11.11.2009 is still pending before the third respondent. It is in the said circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner has retired from service on 31.3.2009. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 revision petition submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.17781/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.17781/2010 JUDGMENT 17th June, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.17781/2010 4