IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 1401 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24440/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WPC --------------------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- C.B.PREETHI, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), CIVIL STATION, KANNUR ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN FOR R THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, ALONG WITH WA.1716/09 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.A. Nos. 1401 and 1716 OF 2009 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. These appeals are filed against the judgments in W.P. (C) Nos.24440/08 and 31575/06 respectively. Those writ petitions were heard and disposed of by a common judgment dated 26.3.2009. Though W.P.(C) No.31575/06 has become infructuous, since the directions are issued as per the common judgment, for technical reasons, it is stated, they preferred W.A.No.1716/09. W.A.No.1401/09 This appeal is treated as the main case. The directions issued in the common judgment reads as follows:- “ 17. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms: The pay scale of the petitioner will be re-fixed after granting the increments and pay revision benefits. The same shall be done within a period of two months from the date WA.1401 & 1716/09 : 2 : of receipt of a copy of this judgment. She will be further entitled to be granted the benefits of higher grade and leave salary. All the service benefits which are due from 24.6.2005, the date of Ext.P2 order of suspension, have to be released to her in the light of Exts.P3 and P8 judgments. Such benefits will be quantified and the amount shall be disbursed within a period of five months from today. The salary will be re- fixed accordingly and she will be continued to be disbursed the revised monthly salary as such apart from the arrears from the date of Ext.P2. 18. The direction in Ext.P8 judgment to regularise the period of suspension will also be complied with by passing appropriate orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already done. The petitioner will be considered for a reposting in an appropriate vacancy in Malappuram district and orders in this regard will be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The claim for promotion raised by the petitioner is left open and she will be entitled to agitate the same before the appropriate authority.” 2. Heard learned government pleader Smt.R.Bindu and Sri.V.Rajendran, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The respondent/ writ petitioner was suspended thrice. WA.1401 & 1716/09 : 3 : Last of the suspensions was by the government as per Ext.P1. The said suspension order was withdrawn on 7.12.2007. According to the appellants, the period of suspension cannot be regularised for the reason that a vigilance case registered against her for the alleged misconduct of making a false entry in her service book is pending investigation. In view of the said position, the direction issued by the learned single Judge in the above quoted portion of the judgment to release the increment and pay revision benefits cannot be granted. This is the grievance canvassed by the appellants before us. 4. Going by the facts of the case, we notice that the earlier suspensions were held to be illegal or rather void ab initio. Therefore, suspensions ordered earlier before the order of suspension issued by the government on 1.11.2006 cannot have any legal impact. So, the respective periods have to be treated as duty for all purposes. Regarding the present suspension period, i.e. from 1.11.2006 to 7.12.2007, the appellants may treat the said period as suspension and regularise the said period accordingly for the time being, for the purpose of releasing the service benefits WA.1401 & 1716/09 : 4 : like increment, pay revision arrears, etc. to the respondent. If ultimately the criminal proceedings against her ends in her favour, she will be free to move for re-opening the order regularising the period from 1.11.2006 to 7.12.2007, as suspension and for treating the period as duty. With the above clarification, the writ appeal is dismissed. W.A.No.1716/09 In view of the order in W.A.1401/09, no orders are required in this appeal. Therefore, it is closed. Sd/- (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. to Judge