IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 485 of 2009() -------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DT.18.11.2008 IN O.P.NO.28776/1999) ------------------------------- APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------- A.S.NARAYANA MOORTHY, MANAGER, S.M.HIGH SCHOOL, AYALUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 AND LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED --------------- 3RD RESPONDENT: 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 3. ALEYSUBA VARGHESE, KOCHUPURACKAL HOUSE, NSS COLLEGE POST, NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. SHIJU VARGHESE, DO, DO, (RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED ORIGINAL THIRD RESPONDENT K.M.VARGHESE. ADV.SRI.M.V.BOSE FOR R3 AND R4. GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU FOR R1 & R2. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A. No.485 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the Manager of an aided school. He filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P23 order of the District Educational Officer dated 27.9.1999. The 3rd respondent was a clerk working in his school. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The appellant, for imposing penalty of dismissal on him, sought previous sanction of the competent authority under Rule 75(11)(c) of the Chapter XIVA of the K.E.R. The D.E.O after hearing the appellant and the 3rd respondent declined to grant permission to dismiss the employee from service. Impugning the said order, the writ petition was filed. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 3rd respondent died. Therefore, the learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition, along with other connected writ petitions, by the judgment under appeal dated 18.11.2008. The objectionable part in the judgment according to the appellant is the following: W.A.No.485/2009 2 “The Manager shall, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, forward appropriate proposal for disbursement of the terminal benefits due to the legal heirs of late Sri.K.M.Varghese to the D.E.O. after regularising the period during which he was out of service on account of the disciplinary proceedings.” 2. According to the appellant, he is aggrieved by the above direction, which mandates that he should regularise the period, the 3rd respondent was out of service. According to him, the 3rd respondent was out of service for a very long period. We find nothing wrong with the above quoted direction of the learned Single Judge. The Manger has to regularise the period of absence of the 3rd respondent in accordance with law. If he is not competent to regularise the period, as per the relevant rules, he shall forward a proposal for the same to the D.E.O, so that, the D.E.O. or other appropriate higher authorities can pass final orders in the matter. With the above clarification, regarding the direction to the Manager, the writ appeal is closed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps