IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 8891 of 2006(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ASEES.T., AGED 35 YEARS, H.S.A. (MALAYALAM), G.H.S.S., VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM, THALANGAL, PATHIMANGALAM, KUNNAMANGALAM (P.O), CALICUT. BY ADVS. MR.M.SASINDRAN, MR.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR. MUHAMOOD T.T. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.8891/2006-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.139/96/C. EDN. DTD. 30/03/1996. EXT.P.1.A: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A2/28529/2000 DTD. 30/01/2002. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 8060/2002 DTD. 04/12/2003. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A2/6941/02 DTD. 07/02/2004. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NO.A3/6941/02 ABOVE ORDER DTD. 14/10/2004. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 21/12/2005 ALONGWITH THE AUDIT OBJECTION. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28/10/2004 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 18/01/2005 IN W.P.(C).NO.37311/2004. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.8891/2006-H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is aggrieved by Ext.P5 whereby the Deputy Director of Education has forwarded the audit objection in relation to the fixation of salary with a further direction to repay the excess amount received by him. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as P.D. Teacher on 15/06/1993 and thereafter, he was temporarily promoted as H.S.A (Malayalam) by order dated 20/09/1996. Later, the petitioner and many others were reverted as per Exts.P1(a) order. The reversion was mainly on the ground that P.S.C hands are to be accommodated. Challenging the said reversion, they approached this Court by filing O.P.No.8060/2002 which was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment. In Ext.P2, various directions have been issued whereby, this Court held that the at least, 33 vacancies will have to be filled up by promotion with reference to the year 2001-2002, for satisfying the cadre strength. Thereafter, by Ext.P3 order, the judgment was implemented. Ext.P4 is the order by which the petitioner was also promoted. W.P.(C). No.8891/2006 -:2:- 3. Going by Ext.P2 judgment, there is a declaration that qualified members belonging to the feeder categories of posts for the post of H.S.A (Malayalam) will be entitled to be promoted to fill up, at least, 33 vacancies more for the purpose of satisfying the cadre strength for the year 2001-2002 as per the method of recruitment as also the General Rules in K.S. & S.S.R. A reading of Ext.P3 shows that in C.M.P.No.14633/2002 in O.P.No.8060/2002, there was an order to the effect that the reversion will be subject to the final orders in the original petition and in case they succeed in the original petition they will be entitled to all consequential benefits. Therefore, in Ext.P3 it was ordered that the promotees will be eligible for all service benefits for the period from their joining duty as H.S.A (Malayalam), but salary will be claimed only for the period actually they were working as H.S.A (Malayalam). 4. The petitioner's pay and allowances were notionally fixed and notional increments from the day of his original promotion, namely, 20/01/1996, were also granted. It is also averred that all other teachers who were promoted as per Ext.P3 were granted the same benefits and they were drawing the said benefits which the petitioner was also getting. W.P.(C). No.8891/2006 -:3:- 5. It is pointed out that the audit objection Ext.P5, is directly in conflict with Ext.P2 judgment as the notional fixation was granted to the petitioner pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P2 judgment. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P5 cannot be supported in the light of the above aspects. 7. My attention was drawn to an order No.A2/27909/06, dated 21/04/2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram in regard to one Sri.A.V.Ambujakshan and nine others who were promoted as H.S.As (Malayalam) provisionally. This followed, the directions issued in the judgment in W.P.(C).No.21788/2006. They have been regularised in the category of H.S.A (Malayalam) with effect from the date of their joining as H.S.A (Malayalam) making it clear that the monetary benefits will be claimed only for the period actually they were working as H.S.A (Malayalam) and no pay arrears will be paid for the notional promotion period. One of the names specified therein is that of Shri P.K.Padmanabhan who is Sl.No.15 in Ext.P1(a) whereas the petitioner is Sl.No.21 therein. Sl.No.3 in Ext.P4 order of promotion is Smt.Santhi M., whereas the petitioner is Sl.No.2 in Ext.P4. In respect of Smt.Santhi M., the Deputy Director of Education has passed an Order No.A2/34553/2008 K.Dis, dated 25/02/2009, regularising her as H.S.A (Malayalam) from the date of her W.P.(C). No.8891/2006 -:4:- joining. This order is seen passed pursuant to the directions issued in W.P.(C).No.34251/2008. In that view of the matter, the petitioner will also be entitled for the same benefits which are granted to the teachers above, as he is similarly placed. In fact, this Court by Ext.P7 judgment, in respect of similarly placed teachers, had granted the benefits. 8. Therefore, Ext.P5 is quashed. The first respondent will pass appropriate orders in the light of orders passed in respect of Smt.Santhi M., Sl.No.3 in Ext.P4 and Shri.P.K.Padmanabhan, Sl.No.15 in Ext.P1(a). The petitioner will produce, the copies of those orders before the first respondent, without delay. Appropriate orders will be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms