IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 W.A.No. 2030 of 2009 ---------------------- --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15677/2007 Dated 18/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): 6TH RESPONDENT IN THE WP(C) ------------------------ BULA FATHIMA LOPEZ, "RESMI", MURUKKUMPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695302. (VOLUNTARILY RETIRED CLERK, ST.AUGUSTINE'S HIGH SCHOOL, MURUKKUMPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695302). BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN & SRI.V.V.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENT 1 TO 5 IN THE WPC(C) -------------------------- 1. MANAGER, ST.AUGUSTINE'S HIGH SCHOOL, KURUKKUMPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 302. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. HEADMISTREES, ST.AUGUSTINE'S HIGH SCHOOL, MURUKKUMPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 302. 6. SHRI.NAVEEN CHRISTOPHER, CLERK, ST.AUGUSTINE'S HIGH SCHOOL, MURUKKUMPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 302. R1 BY ADV. SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPILLY NAGAR) R2 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU. R5 BY ADV. SRI. GOPAKUMAR R. THALIYIL. R6 BY ADV. SRI. S.P. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE & SMT. N. SANTHA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.2030 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 16th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The first respondent herein has filed the Writ Petition challenging Ext.P5 order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 9.4.2007 and Ext.P6 order of the said officer, dated 3.5.2007. The learned Single Judge quashed those orders. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal is preferred by the sixth respondent in the Writ Petition. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The appellant was working as a Clerk in the first respondent's/writ petitioner's school. She applied for voluntary retirement from service with effect from 1.9.2006. The said motion was sanctioned by the Deputy Director of Education in consultation with the Accountant General by Ext.P3 communication dated 25.12.2006. Pursuant to that, she retired from service with effect from 1.9.2006 and has refunded the W.A.No.2030 of 2009: - 2 - salary received by her after 1.9.2006. While so, the Deputy Director of Education suo motu took action to recall the sanction granted for voluntary retirement of the appellant. Apparently, this was done by the Deputy Director of Education on being alerted by the Headmaster of the School that the appellant owes substantial amounts to several persons and the outstanding liabilities are more than the admissible pensionary benefits. Pending further action, the Deputy Director of Education issued Ext.P5 communication to the Headmaster not to proceed with Ext.P3 order dated 25.12.2006 granting sanction to the request for voluntary retirement of the appellant. It was followed by Ext.P6 order dated 3.5.2007, as per which the sanction granted as per Ext.P3 was recalled by the Deputy Director of Education. The learned Single Judge quashed those orders and directed the District Educational Officer to consider the approval of the appointment of the substitute posted in the place of the appellant. 3. In this appeal, the appellant mainly canvassed for a direction to pay her the salary for the period she has actually W.A.No.2030 of 2009: - 3 - worked pursuant to Ext.P6. According to her, she rejoined duty on 22.5.2007 and continued in service up to 18.8.2009, i.e. the date on which the writ petition was disposed of. The appellant submits that her claim is supported by the counter affidavit filed by the D.E.O. in this case. 4. The above submission of the appellant is seriously disputed by the first respondent/Manager and the sixth respondent, Navin Christopher, who was appointed in the place of the appellant. According to them, the sixth respondent joined duty on 15.3.2007 and was continuously working since then. 5. The learned Single Judge has declined to pass any order for payment of salary for the period the appellant has claimed to have actually worked. That part of the judgment is under challenge in this appeal. 6. We agree with the learned Single Judge that W.A.No.2030 of 2009: - 4 - Ext.P6 was passed without jurisdiction. The ground taken for recalling that order, even assuming that the third respondent has such power, was totally irrelevant. So, on the strength of an invalid order, no one can claim any benefit. At any rate, public funds cannot be paid to the appellant. But, if she had any claim for damages against the Manager, on the ground that she was made to work by him without paying salary, she will be free to pursue the same before appropriate forum. Subject to that observation, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- P. Bhavadasan, Judge. DK. (True copy)