IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10606 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.SAJITHA,UPSA, HS KADAMPAZHIPURAM, OTTAPPALAM,PALAKKD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 4. THE HEADMISTRESS H.S. KADAMPAZHIPURAM, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.10606 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is now working as UPSA under the third respondent. She was originally appointed in a leave vacancy from 1.6.2000 to 4.8.1999, which was approved by the second respondent as per order dated 26.4.2000. She secured later appointments in short spells between 1.9.1999 to 22.12.1999, 17.7.2000 to 14.11.200 and 9.1.2001 to 12.3.2001 and all these appointments were also approved by separate orders. Subsequently, she was appointed in a regular vacancy from 1.1.2001 and she completed her probation on 30.9.2002. Regular appointment of the petitioner also stands approved by the proceedings of the third respondent dated 26.3.2003. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that broken service can be counted for the purpose of sanction of increment as per Rule 33 of Part I KSR. Seeking for such orders the fourth respondent on 4.11.2008 wrote to the third respondent. That was returned as per endorsement dated 28.11.2008, which was adverse to her interest. Again it was WP(C).10606/09 2 forwarded by the fourth respondent to the third respondent on 16.12.2008. Again it was returned which prompted her to file Exhibit P3 representation. The representation submitted thus was also returned by another endorsement as per Exhibit P4 relying upon a G.O dated 8.8.2008. The same has been produced by the petitioner as Exhibit P5. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Clauses 4 and 19 of Exhibit P5 show that service reckoned for increment shall be treated as qualifying service for granting higher grade, including broken periods. Therefore, it is contended that there cannot be any objection against consideration of Exhibit P3. 4. Since the representation is pending before the Government, it is for the Government to take a decision in the matter. Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P3 in WP(C).10606/09 3 accordance with relevant rules and orders, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the first respondent for compliance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE vgs.