IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 32807 of 2008(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- K.KANJANA, UPSA (RETIRED), ATHIRAKAM , U.P.SCHOOL, MUNDAYAD, KANNUR LAKSHMI NIVAS, P.O. CHOVVA, KANNUR-670006. BY ADVS. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN SMT.C.J.REMYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRPESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, (GENERAL) EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.32807/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LEAVE SANCTIONING ORDER DTD. 3.4.1991 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE LEAVE SANCTIONING ORDER DTD. 3.2.1995 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26.3.2001. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20.10.2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23.2.2006 OF THE GOVERNMENT. P6:- COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 25.1.07. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 24.4.07. P8:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD. 301.2.2005. P9:- COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT ON 15.6.07. P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 24.9.08 OF THE GOVERNMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 32807 of 2008-E - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order passed by the Government whereby, after regularising certain period as leave without allowance, it is stated that it cannot be reckoned as qualifying service for pension. 2. The petitioner joined as UPSA on 2.6.1986 in Athirakam U.P. School, Mundayad, Kannur. Leave without allowance was sanctioned as per Ext.P1 which was extended by Ext.P2. Initially, the period of leave was from 2.6.1989 to 31.5.1994 and later the period was extended from 1.6.1994 to 31.5.1996. It was ordered with a specific condition that the period will not count for pension. During the currency of the leave, the petitioner was retrenched from service with effect from 15.7.1995 due to division fall in the parent school. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that as the retrenchment was prior to 14.7.1996, in terms of Ext.P3 order, she was entitled for protection. When a vacancy arose on 1.9.2004, again she was appointed and subsequently thrown out from 25.11.2004. The next vacancy arose on 1.4.2005 and wpc 32807/2008 2 thereafter the petitioner joined as UPSA in the parent school on 1.4.2005 itself. The appointment from 1.9.2004 to 24.11.2004 and from 1.4.2005 was approved as per Ext.P5 order. She attained superannuation on 31.5.2006. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that even though she was entitled for protection, she was not granted the benefit for the period from 1.6.1996 to 31.8.2004. The petitioner contended that it is against the terms of Ext.P3 Govt. Order which says that the period during which the teachers who are out of service till the deployment on protection, will be regularised as eligible leave or leave without allowance. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a representation. 5. Ultimately, the details were forwarded to the Accountant General for sanctioning pension, but a clarification was sought from the Government. The petitioner also filed Ext.P6 representation and Government finally issued a clarification as per Ext.P7. According to the petitioner, the circular Ext.P8 referred to by the Government is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, as she was under orders of protection. Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted a representation as per Ext.P9. But finally the Government took the view that the period in question will not count for pension. wpc 32807/2008 3 6. In Ext.P10 the Government took the view that the petitioner is not having the minimum qualifying service for pension. But learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if Ext.P3 is interpreted in the proper manner, the petitioner will get the benefit of the said Govt. Order, so that at least minimum pension could be granted to the petitioner. 7. The above aspect is not considered in Exts.P7 and P10. Apart from that, it is pointed out that before passing the order, the petitioner was not heard also. I am not expressing anything on the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the matter will have to be considered by the Government after notice to the petitioner. Therefore, Exts.P7 and P10 are quashed. The Government will take a fresh decision after hearing the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The matter will be considered in terms of the various Govt. Orders. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/