IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 28984 of 2006(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- LEENA MATHEW, UPSA, SACRED HEART U.P.SCHOOL, KODAMKULANGARA, TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADVS. SRI.N.NAGARESH, SRI.BINU PAUL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TRIPUNITHURA. 2. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE A.E.O, TRIPUNITHURA. 3. HEAD MASTER, SACRED HEART U.P.SCHOOL, KODAMKULANGARA, TRIPUNITHURA. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE, R3 BY ADVS. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE, SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY, SMT.THANKOM.G, SRI.E.M.MURUGAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.28984/2006-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 16/01/1999 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 12/02/1999 SUBMITTED TO THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 14/07/2004 IN O.P. NO. 4174/1999 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. D/4284/2004 DTD. 04/09/2004 OF THE R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 03/08/2006 SUBMITTED TO THE R.1. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. D.3513/06 DTD. 22/08/2006 OF THE R.1. ADDRESSED TO THE R.3. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 09/10/2006 SUBMITTED TO THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.28984 Of 2006 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JANUARY, 2011 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the proceedings culminating in Exhibit P6, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner's declaration of probation and consequential grant of increments was objected in the audit as per Exhibit P1. The objection was in respect of another teacher Joseph C.Jose also. Against the audit objection, the petitioner filed Exhibit P2 representation. While that was pending, Mr.Joseph C.Jose approached this Court by filing O.P.No.4174/99, which was allowed as per Exhibit P3 judgment. The petitioner requested the 1st respondent to extent similar treatment to the petitioner also. A reply was given as per Exhibit P4 stating that since the petitioner is not a party to the judgment, the same will not apply to her. After repeated reminders, Exhibits P6(a) reply was given. 3. Herein the only question is whether there is any irregularity in the declaration of probation and the reckoning of broken period for the purpose of increment. Evidently, the same W.P.(C)No.28984/06 -2- issue was considered by this Court in Exhibit P3 judgment. After extracting the explanation to Rule 6A of Chapter XIV-A of KER, it was held thus: “Under Rule 61 of the said Chapter, “a teacher appointed on probation shall draw his first increment in the time scale only with effect from the date of satisfactory completion of probation, but subsequent increments shall be drawn on the first day of the month in which they fall due”. Thus, the statute makes the position clear that for the purpose of declaration of probation broken spells can be counted and that increment is liable to be drawn with effect from the date of satisfactory completion of probation. Therefore, the objection taken has no basis. The impugned orders are quashed. The petitioner will be entitled for his first increment fixed as on 5.2.1995.” 4. Going by the Explanation to Rule 6(a) of Chapter XIV-A of KER, in the case of an aided school teacher, broken period can be counted as duty for the purpose of probation. 5. Since audit objection in respect of the teachers are the same, the reasoning adopted by this Court in Exhibit P3 judgment will apply to the case of the petitioner also. 6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the Manager has declared the probation of the petitioner from 14.3.1996 counting the broken service as UPSA; i.e., before her appointment as an LPSA in a regular vacancy on 2.6.1997. Therefore, the objection taken by the 1st respondent is based on W.P.(C)No.28984/06 -3- irregular declaration of probation and subsequent sanction of the post. 7. There cannot be any dispute that the petitioner is entitled to be extended the benefit of Rule 6(a) of Chapter XIV-A of KER. Apart from that, increments were sanctioned and the benefit was drawn by the petitioner also. Therefore, even if the said contention is accepted, what would have required is due declaration of the probation by the Manager. In that view of the matter, I respectfully agree with the view taken in Exhibit P3 judgment. Hence the Writ Petition is allowed. Exhibits P4 and P6 are quashed. It is declared that the increments counted from 14.3.1996, 1.3.1997 and 1.3.1998 are not irregular. The petitioner will also be entitled for the consequential benefits arising from the subsequent pay revisions. No costs. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn True copy P.A.to Judge