IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 OP.No. 8972 of 1996(R) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.K.THANKAMMA, DEEPA COTTAGE, THOOKUPALAM, KALLAR PO. PATTOM COLONY, PIN 685 552, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY MR.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV.MR.ELVIN PETER P.J. MR.N.RAGHURAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT , GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.DILIP MOHAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.8972/1996 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.991/93/D. DTD. 25.3.1993 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D/1428/93/L.DIST. DTD. 30.30.1993 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SMT.A.C.SAROJINI. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/1465/93 DTD. 12.5.1993 ISSUED BY THE DEO, KATTAPPANA. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D/991/93 DTD. 31.5.1993 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. RT. NO. 4303/95 /G.EDN. DTD. 6.12.1995. P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 18.9.95 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVT. P7:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.C5/15914/95 DTD. 31.10.1995 FROM THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDN., IDUKKI TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 16.12.1995 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C5/4920/96 DT.D 8.4.1996 FROM THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDN., IDUKKI TO THE GENERAL CONVENOR, HYRANGE, NEETHIMELA. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P. No.8972 OF 1996 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 24th day of February 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an old lady who must have now become sick of walking the corridors of this Court, filing cases in respect of her eligibility for promotion to the post of Headmistress with effect from 1.4.1993. The Manager of the school and two other claimants for promotion had fought tooth and nail to deny the petitioner that benefit. While so, the petitioner retired from service on 31/3/1995. The petitioner's eligibility for promotion to the vacancy of Headmistress which arose on 1/4/1993 was upheld after a series of litigation by Exts.P1,P3 and P5 orders. One of the rival claimants challenged the same in O.P.No.19507 of 1995 and that original petition was dismissed for default by me on 11/3/2009. No petition has been filed for restoration of the same. As such, Exts.P1, P3 and P5 have become final. Consequently, the petitioner's right to be promoted as Headmistress with effect from 1/4/1993 stands concluded in O.P. No.8972 OF 1996 -2- her favour. But unfortunately, the benefit due to her in respect of that promotion, the benefits of pay revision pursuant to G.O.(P).No.600/93/Fin dated 25/9/1993 and the retirement benefits due to the petitioner have not been disbursed to her yet. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this original petition seeking the following reliefs: (i) “issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order asking the respondents to give salary of the petitioner as Headmistress from 1.4.1993 till the date of her retirement with increments legitimately due to her. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order asking the respondents to give the revision of pay to which the petitioner is entitled on the basis of G.O.(P)No.600/93/Fin. dated 25.9.1993 with effect from 1.7.1993 in the category of Headmistress of L.P. School. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to give the retirement benefits due to the petitioner as if she functioned as Headmistress from 1.4.1993 till the date of her retirement on 31.3.1995 forthwith. (iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 22% per annum for the arrears of salary and arrears of retirement benefits legitimately due tot eh petitioner. And O.P. No.8972 OF 1996 -3- (v) grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including costs.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader does not dispute the eligibility of the petitioner for the reliefs prayed for. The only contention raised by the Government Pleader is procedural formalities have to be complied with by the Manager by forwarding an order promoting the petitioner as Headmistress with effect from 1.4.1993 and the education authority approving the same, as stipulated under the Kerala Educational Rules which has not yet been done. 3. I have considered the rival arguments. 4. Obviously, the relationship between the Manager and the petitioner is no more cordial. As such, if the procedure suggested by the learned Government Pleader is to be complied with now, it would delay the matter further and that would put the petitioner who is now 70 years old to further agony. In the above circumstances, the original petition is allowed as follows: O.P. No.8972 OF 1996 -4- The petitioner is deemed to have been promoted as Headmistress with effect from 1.4.1993 and such promotion is deemed to have been approved by the appropriate educational authority. Forwarding of formal appointment order and approval of the same is dispensed with. The 2nd respondent shall pass an order to that effect and disburse the benefits due to the petitioner as per the first three prayers in original petition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. In view of the fact that, the petitioner has not chosen to implead the Manager in this writ petition, who is the person actually responsible for the delay in the matter, I am unable to direct payment of interest to recover the same from the Manager, which would have been the appropriate course in the matter. Therefore, the claim for interest is declined. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE nl.