IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP.No. 15491 of 2003(T) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S) :- -------------------------- SMT.SUGIRTHA HENRY, P.D.TEACHER, GOVT. UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VANDIPERIYAR – 6/85 553. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S) :- ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRSENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION (H) DEPARTMENT,\ GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA BABU THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt OP.No. 15491 of 2003 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of petition for review dated 29.7.1993 of the petitioner to the 1st respondent. Ext.P2 :- Copy of statement dated 25.3.1994 of the petitioner to the Deputy Secretary to Government. Ext.P3 :- Copy of order No.G.O. (Rt) 1980/94/G.Edn. Dated 13.6.1994 of the General Education (H) Department, Government of Kerala to the petitioner. Ext.P4 :- Copy of order No.H-2/12835/94 dated 2.9.1994 of the Deputy Director of Education, Idukki to the petitioner. Ext.P5 :- Copy of notice No.V2.64989/94/DPI dated 5.1.1985 of the office of the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. Ext.P6 :- Copy of representation dated 2.9.2002 of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL //True Copy// P.A. to Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- O.P. No.15491 of 2003 --------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June 2011 J U D G M E N T Averments in the original petition show that the petitioner joined service as a P.D. Teacher (Tamil) in the Government High School, Anakkara in Idukki District in January, 1977. Subsequently, in 1980 she was transferred to Government High School, Elappara and again to Government U.P. School, Vanchivayal. Again on transfer, when the petitioner was working at the U.P.School, Pampanar, based on disciplinary proceedings initiated against her by order dated 29.11.1988, she was removed from service with effect from 9.4.1985. On Ext.P1 application filed by the petitioner, the Government issued Ext.P3 order dated 13.6.1994 reinstating the petitioner in the service with immediate effect. The operative portion of the order reads as under :- O.P. No.15491 of 2003 -: 2 :- “In view of the peculiar circumstances stated above, sanction is accorded for reinstating Smt.Sugirtha Henry P.D. Teacher G.T.U.P.S. Vanchivayal Idukki into service with immediate effect. The order issued by the Deputy Director of Education Idukki in terminating the teacher from service is hereby revoked. The Addl. Director of Public Instruction will conduct a detailed enquiry within a month and furnish a report to Govt. promptly.” 2. In pursuance to Ext.P3, Ext.P4 order dated 2.9.1994 was passed by the Deputy Director (Edn.), Idukki and as per that order petitioner was reinstated in service and was posted to Government U.P.School, Vandiperiyar. The operative portion of the order reads as under :- “In the above circumstances this office order No.K.Dis/18492/85/A5 dated 29.11.88 terminating Smt.Sugirtha Henry, P.D.Teacher from service is hereby revoked. It is also ordered to reinstate the teacher in service with immediate effect and she is posted to Govt.U.P.School, Vandiperiyar. The Headmaster Govt. U.P.School, Vandiperiyar will report the date of joining duty of the teacher at once.” 3. According to the petitioner, she was thereafter issued Ext.P5 notice of enquiry and in pursuance thereon, O.P. No.15491 of 2003 -: 3 :- she appeared before enquiry but however, the enquiry was postponed. Nothing was heard thereafter and even the representations made by the petitioner did not evoke any response. 4. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition was filed with following prayers :- “(a) a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to conduct detailed enquiry as stipulated in Exhibit P-3 after affording the petitioner an opportunity to submit her explanation to the memo of charges and the statement of allegations dated 31.8.1988, to adduce her evidence, to call for production of the documents required and to present the case effectively as requested for in Ext.P-1. (b) a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to pay provisionally increments in her salary and allowances atleast from the date of her reinstatement in service pursuant to Ext.P-3 and P-4. (c) a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P-6 representation as expeditiously as possible.” 5. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the O.P. No.15491 of 2003 -: 4 :- respondents. 6. From the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, it is now disclosed that the petitioner has already retired from service. In view of the said development and also the long lapse of time, I do not think any useful purpose will be served at this stage by ordering completion of the enquiry as sought for by the petitioner. Realising this, counsel for the petitioner mainly prayed for direction to the respondents to grant her monetary benefits consequent to her reinstatement in the service, which according to the petitioner, are still remaining to be fixed. 7. Admittedly, by Ext.P4 order, the petitioner was reinstated in service and on that basis petitioner continued in service till her retirement. If that be so, she is entitled to get monetary benefits consequent to her reinstatement. If such benefits are still remaining unpaid, necessary orders are to be passed in that behalf. However, since the Deputy Director (Edn.), Idukki is not in the party array and for lack O.P. No.15491 of 2003 -: 5 :- of particulars no positive order can be issued in this original petition. 8. In the circumstances, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Deputy Director (Edn.) concerned, who shall examine the claim of the petitioner for monetary benefits. It is also directed that if such benefits are still withheld, the said officer shall pass orders dealing with this claim, in accordance with law. 9. In order to enable the said officer to do the same, I direct that the petitioner shall file a representation before the said officer, who shall consider the matter and issue orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Jvt