IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30670 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.P.JALAJAMANI, (UPSA) RETIRED, `DAS NIVAS', T.C.NO.35/457, VALLAKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (H) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4. THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SOUTH-695 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30670 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as UPSA in P.S.M. U.P. School, Muttathara on 16.9.1985. It is stated that the petitioner has continuous service from 2.6.1986 onwards. The school is situated very near to the airport at Thiruvananthapuram. A large area of the school compound was acquired by the Civil Aviation Department, Government of India for expansion of the airport. Consequently, several students left the school. This resulted in division fall. Four teachers had to be retrenched. The petitioner was retrenched from service on 15.7.1994. Later, as protected teacher, she was deployed in another school by Exhibit P2 order dated 19.7.1996. The petitioner joined as protected teacher in Government U.P. School, Beemapally on 22.7.1996 pursuant to Exhibit P2. Thus, it can be seen that from 15.7.1994 to 21.7.1996, she was not in regular service as she was retrenched on 15.7.1994 and she was deployed later. The WPC No.30670/2010 2 case of the petitioner is that even during this period from 15.7.1994 to 21.7.1996, she was working in P.S.M. U.P. School, Muttathara. However, she was not paid any salary during this period. 2. As per Exhibit P3 G.O.Rt No.777/97/G.Edn. dated 5.3.1997, the Government granted protection to M.Beema Kannu, UPSA of P.S.M. U.P.S., who was also retrenched on the same date on which the petitioner was retrenched. From Exhibit P3, it is clear that the Private School Teachers' Association had taken up the matter before the Government pointing out the situation in which division fall occurred in the school on account of the expansion of the airport at Thiruvananthapuram. The name of the petitioner is also mentioned as one among the four teachers who were retrenched from service. 3. The petitioner was making representations to the Government for granting her salary for the period from 15.7.1994 to 21.7.1996. The Government passed Exhibit P8 WPC No.30670/2010 3 order dated 23.8.2001 declining the request made by the petitioner. The reason for rejection of the request for payment of salary was the following : “The petitioner's argument is that she is eligible for protection with effect from 14.7.1994. She was on duty from 15.7.1994 to 21.7.1996 in P.S.M. U.P.S., Muttathara and have performed the normal duties in the school during this period and have signed the teachers' attendance register. The pay and allowances withheld for the above period is unjustifiable. But the Deputy Director of Education has reported that there was no post at P.S.M. U.P.S., Muttathara for the period from 15.7.1994 to 21.7.1996 to accommodate the petitioner.” 4. The petitioner did not challenge Exhibit P8 order dated 23.8.2001. Later, M.Beema Kannu, who was deployed as a protected teacher, was paid salary for the period from 15.7.1994 to 23.7.1997, as per Exhibit P9 order dated 10.9.2008 passed by WPC No.30670/2010 4 the Senior Superintendent in the office of the Assistant Educational Officer, Thiruvananathapuram South. That order was passed as per the direction in the judgment in O.P.No.20284 of 1999 filed by M.Beema Kannu. The learned Singe Judge of this Court took the view in O.P.No.20284 of 1999 that Beema Kannu was entitled to salary for the period from 15.7.1994 to 23.7.1997 on the ground that she was actually working in the school even after retrenchment. In O.P.No.20284 of 1999, the Government Order dated 5.3.1997 (Exhibit P3), wherein protection was granted to Beema Kannu in relaxation of the rules, was also taken note of. In view of the fact that Beema Kannu, another teacher of the same school, was given salary for the period from the date of retrenchment and the date of deployment on protection, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P10 representation dated 21.6.2010 to the Government praying for the same relief. In Exhibit P10, all the facts have been stated in detail. Exhibit P10 is pending disposal. 5. As stated above, four teachers were retrenched on WPC No.30670/2010 5 15.7.1994. All of them were working in the same school. Reason for retrenchment was the same. The petitioner was deployed as a protected teacher with effect from 22.7.1996. From the date of retrenchment to the date of joining duty after deployment, the petitioner was working in the school. In similar circumstances, in relaxation of the rules, salary was given to Beema Kannu. It is only proper that the same treatment is meted out to the petitioner as well. It is true that the Government had declined the request of the petitioner as per Exhibit P8 order dated 23.8.2001. But, the salary was given to Beema Kannu after that date, in relaxation of the rules. Therefore, the question whether the petitioner should be also given the same benefit in relaxation of the rules would be relevant in spite of the fact that Exhibit P8 was not challenged by the petitioner. For invoking such powers, the petitioner has submitted Exhibit P10 representation before the Government. A similar benefit as given to Beema Kannu could be given to the petitioner while disposing of Exhibit P10 representation. Even in Exhibit P8, there is no finding that the petitioner was not working from 15.7.1994 to 21.7.1996 in WPC No.30670/2010 6 P.S.M. U.P. School, Muttathara. So, it is only just, proper and reasonable to disburse salary to the petitioner also for the aforesaid period. 6. The Government shall consider all these aspects and dispose of Exhibit P10 representation, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl