IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16400 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.RAGHAVAN, DRAWING TEACHER(PART TIME), RAMAJAYAM U.P.SCHOOL, P.O.AZHEEKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PAPPINISSERI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DT.29.7.1985 EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.22.4.2005 EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 30.1.2006 EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF GO DATED 6.4.2000 EXT.P5-TRUE COPY OF GO DATED 12.12.2000 EXT.P6-TRUE COPY OF GO DATED 23.3.2001 EXT.P7-TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21.8.2009 IN WPC 17460/2006 EXT.P8-TRUE COPY OF GO DATED 19.2.2010 RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R1(A)-TRUE COPY OF GO DATED 31.12.2009 // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 16400 of 2010-Y - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT A portion of the order Ext.P8 confining the grant of full time benefit only from the date of the order is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner was appointed as a part-time Drawing Teacher in Ramajayam U.P School, Azheekode as per Ext.P1. He has been continuing in that post thereafter. The petitioner moved the Government seeking for full time benefits. Exts.P4 to P6 are the orders passed in respect of identically placed teachers in other schools. Earlier, this Court by Ext.P7 judgment directed the Government as follows: “In that view of the matter, Ext.P3 is set aside and the matter will be reconsidered by the Government. Since the petitioner is relying upon Exts.P4 to P6, the matter will be considered by the Government in the light of the said orders and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” Ext.P8 is the order passed thereafter. As per Ext.P8, even though full time benefit has been given to the petitioner, it was made effective only from the date of the order, viz. 19.2.2010. wpc 16400/2010 2 2. Shri P.M. Pareed, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though this Court directed the Government to reconsider the matter in the light of Exts.P4 to P6 orders, the Government has not considered those orders while granting the full time benefit to the petitioner by Ext.P8 order. It is pointed out that what is referred to in Ext.P8 is another order dated 31.12.2009. It is only subsequent to Ext.P7 judgment. A copy of the order dated 31.12.2009 has been produced by the respondents along with the counter affidavit as Ext.R1(a). 3. Since there was a direction by this court to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the granting of benefits to persons covered by Exts.P4 to P6, the Government was bound to consider the same, accordingly. Apart from that, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Ext.R1(a), the benefit has been granted to persons who had completed 15 years of part-time service. The petitioner has already completed 25 years of part-time service. Whatever that be, the order Ext.P8 does not reflect the consideration, if any, of Exts.P4 to P6 orders. When there was a specific direction by this Court, the effect of those orders ought to have been considered and the matter should have been assessed in wpc 16400/2010 3 that manner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is identical to one Smt. Rathi Devi, who has been granted the full time benefit as per Ext.P5, from 10.1.1983. It is pointed out that therein also the students strength was below 500 and her junior Shri K.C. Surendran was given the full time benefit after restoring the full time post of craft teacher and pursuant to the same, Smt. Rathi Devi was granted the said benefit. It is contended that the factual position is that there are no differences at all between South Pattiam U.P. School wherein Smt. Rathi Devi is working and that of the petitioner's school. 5. All these are matters for the Government to consider. In that view of the matter, Ext.P8 to the extent to which it restricts the grant of fill time benefit to the petitioner from the date of the said order alone, is quashed. The Government will reconsider the matter in the light of the directions in Ext.P7 judgment, as already mentioned as well as the findings rendered herein. The direction as above, is only to consider the claim of the petitioner for full time benefits from the date of appointment. Appropriate orders will be passed after hearing the petitioner, within a period of two wpc 16400/2010 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment as it is pointed out that the petitioner will have to retire by 31.3.2011. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/