IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 20076 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ MARY TELMA, SEWING TEACHER, ST.THERESA'S CONVENT L.P.SCHOOL, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, HOLY ANGELS CONVENT SCHOOL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE HEADMISTRESS, ST.THERESA'S CONVENT L.P.SCHOOL, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R1 SRI.K.T.THOMAS FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED T.T. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.20076/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF GOVT.ORDER DATED 21.2.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPYOF ORDER DT 7.6.07 APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD 25.8.07 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD 22.10.2007 IN IA NO.12235/07. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 14.1.2008 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 19.3.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 20076 OF 2008 (M) ==================== Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Sewing teacher appointed under the 1st respondent w.e.f. 5/6/90. There was considerable delay in the approval of her appointment and finally by Ext.P1, the Government ordered the AEO to take immediate steps to approve her appointment and to disburse consequential benefits subject to the condition that the amount so paid will be recovered from the Manager of the School. 2. That part of the order which directs recovery from the Manager is challenged in WP(C) NO.10409/07 at the instance of the Manager and the case is pending. Ext.P1 order has been implemented by the AEO by Ext.P2, with an endorsement that the approval is subject to the condition that payment of salary will be made only in accordance with the verdict of this court in the above writ petition filed by the Manager. Petitioner states that in the meanwhile, apparently on account of the pendency of the Manager's writ petition, she was not being paid even salary or other benefits. As a result of this position, she moved an application in WP(C) No.10409/07 for a direction to release the amounts that are due. Accordingly, an order was passed by this Court on 20/7/07 WPC 20076/08 :2 : directing that in view of the approval that was already been granted 50% of the arrears of salary shall be released within one month. 3. It is stated that though the above order has been complied with, payments were not released for the subsequent period. That made the petitioner to move IA 12235/07 in WP(C) No.10409/07 filed by the Manager. Considering that interlocutory application of the petitioner, this court passed Ext.P4 order. In pursuance to the said order, payment is being given to the petitioner, at the minimum of the scale without any other benefits. It is stated that her probation is also not declared and it is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed praying for directing the respondents to declare satisfactory completion of the probation of the petitioner and to direct respondents 2 and 3 to fix pay of the petitioner granting annual increments, pay revision benefits, grade promotion etc., and release all benefits on that basis. 2. Learned Government Pleader invites my attention to Rule 6 and 61(B) of Chapter XIVA KER and contends that declaration of probation is the duty of the Manager and that it is because Manager has not discharged the statutory duty that the delay has occurred in declaring probation of the petitioner and consequent delay in releasing all benefits that are due. WPC 20076/08 :3 : 3. I heard the counsel appearing for the Manager also. 4. Having regard to the submissions made, I see no justification in the inordinate delay that is caused in declaring the probation of the petitioner and no reason whatsoever is forthcoming to justify the same. Therefore, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for directing the Manager that her probation should be declared at the earliest. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to declare satisfactory completion of the probation of the petitioner and on that basis, the 3rd respondent shall submit the bill. Respondents 1 and 3 shall complete this exercise within 4 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on receipt of the bill, the 2nd respondent shall countersign the bill and release all payments that are due within 4 weeks thereafter. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp