IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 28126 of 2002(W) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.JAYASREE, U.P.S.A.A.M.U.P.SCHOOL, PAZHOOR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION (B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, KUTTIPPURAM,. 3. THE MANAGER, A.M.U.P.SCHOOL, PAZHOOR,MALAPPURAM. 4. SMT.K.P.AMMINI, U.P.S.A.A.M.U.P.SCHOOL, PAZHOOR. ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) FOR R4 SRI.SAGAR P.U. FOR R4 SRI.V.V.ASOKAN FOR R3 SMT.S.AMINA FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU FOR R1&2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008, ALONG WITH OP NO. 31209 OF 2002 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 28126/2002. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 9-1-2001. EXT.P2 JUDGMENT IN O.P. 15740/2001 DT. 1.2.2002. EXT.P3 JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO. 911/2002 DT. 31.5.2002. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 26-8-2002. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. Nos. 28126 & 31209 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 13th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T These two original petitions relate to conflicting claims by the petitioners in the two cases. The short facts necessary for disposal of the original petitions are as follows: 2. The 4th respondent (Smt. K.P. Ammini) while working as UPSA in the 3rd respondent's school applied for and was sanctioned leave without allowance for five years from 1-3-1998 to 28-2-2003. When two teachers who had been appointed successively in that leave vacancy got regular appointment, the petitioner in O.P.No. 28126/2002 (Smt. M. Jayasree) was appointed in the resultant leave vacancy on 9-1-2001. Smt. Jayasree's appointment was for the period from 9-1-2001 to 28-2-2003. Thereafter, Smt. Ammini wanted to cancel the unavailed portion of her leave and to join duty on 20-4- 1991. Government directed the manager to appoint Smt. Ammini to duty. The manager challenged the same before this Court in O.P.No. 15740/2001, which was dismissed by a learned Judge. The manager challenged that judgment in W.A.No. 911/2002 in which Ext. P3 judgment was passed, wherein the claim of the manager was not accepted. However, since Smt. Jayasree worked for the period and Smt. Ammini did not, the Division Bench directed that the appointment of Smt. Jayasree be approved for the period from 6-6- 2001 to 31-1-2002. However, Smt. Jayasree continued in service till 5-6-2002. Smt. Jayasree has filed O.P.No. 28126/2002 claiming salary up to 5-6-2002. Smt. Ammini has filed O.P.No. 31209/2002 seeking a direction to the Government and the A.E.O to direct the manager to give all service and consequential benefits to her from the date of rejoining duty, namely, 6-6-2001. 3. I have heard all parties. 4. I am spared of the task of considering the matter on merits O.P.Nos.28126 & 31209/2002. -: 2 :- since the claim of both parties are squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in W.A.No. 911/2002. Paragraph 5 of that judgment reads thus: “5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the strength of the stay order passed by this Court in O.P.No. 15740/2001 the 5th respondent was again appointed with effect from 6-6-2001 in the same leave vacancy and she has been continuing in service. Though the appointment order was submitted for approval, the Educational Officer has not granted approval. Obviously, the Educational Officer could not have granted approval in view of Ext. P6 order of the Government and the pendency of the original petition before this Court . Learned counsel submits that it may be clarified that the dismissal of the original petition or this Writ Appeal will not stand in the way of granting approval to the appointment of the 5th respondent with effect from 6-6-2001 till the disposal of the original petition. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the request made by the learned counsel is just and reasonable. The 4th respondent has not worked during the said period and the 5th respondent has actually worked during the said period on the basis of the appointment order issued by the Manager on the strength of the stay order passed by this Court . Hence, it is only just and reasonable that the appointment of the 5th respondent is approved for the period from 6-6-2001 to 31-1-2002, if the appointment was otherwise in order.” When this Court directed approval of appointment of Smt. Jayasree for the period from 6-6-2001 to 31-1-2002, Smt. Ammini cannot claim salary in the same post for that period. Since this Court directed to approve the appointment of Smt. Jayasree only for the period from 6- 6-2001 to 31-1-2002, she cannot claim salary for any period subsequent to 31-1-2002. Therefore, Smt. Jayasree cannot claim salary subsequent to 31-1-2002 and Smt. Ammini cannot claim benefits for that period. If Smt. Ammini has any claim for the period subsequent to 31-1-2002, she may take it up appropriately with the O.P.Nos.28126 & 31209/2002. -: 3 :- educational authorities, who shall consider and pass orders on the same as expeditiously as possible. The original petitions are disposed of as above Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/