IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 27804 of 2003(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.K.BEENA, W/O.SASIDHARAN.T.V., AGED 40 YEARS, 'NIRMAL', IVERKULAM, MUNDALOR.P.O., KANNUR - 670 062. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR. 4. AZEEKODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, AZEEKODE. ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAN FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JITHESH FOR R1TOR3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON 16/12/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX TO W.P.C.No.27804 of 2003 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5/7/2000 IN W.A.NO.804/2000 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9/10/2001. EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/5/2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // True Copy// PA to Judge A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.27804 of 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent denying her salary from 11/2/2000 to 13/7/2000. Ext.P3 is passed on the ground that during the aforesaid period, the petitioner, though reverted, did not attend duty. 2. The petitioner contends that she, while working as an Upper Division Clerk, was reverted to the post of Lower Division Clerk by order dated 24/1/2000. She challenged the same by filing O.P.No.4872 of 2000. Though an interim order of stay was granted on 15/2/2000, since the substituted person had already entered into service, the petitioner was not permitted to join duty. An application filed to give her a posting was dismissed. The petitioner preferred an appeal as W.A.No.804 of 2000 and by judgment dated 15/7/2000, produced as Ext.P1, this Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as U.D.Clerk within a period of one week. Later, the original petition was allowed making it clear that in case the petitioner has not been granted the salary in the post of U.D.Clerk pursuant to Ext.P3 W.P.C.No.27804 of 2003 2 (order of reversion dated 24/1/2000) and in view of the cancellation of Ext.P3, the petitioner shall be granted all the benefits as if she had not been reverted. There was a direction to comply with the judgment within a period of one month. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the direction issued in the judgment in O.P.No.4872/2000, no action had been taken by the respondents to provide the service benefits to the petitioner. Hence she approaches this Court challenging Ext.P3 and also for a direction to the respondents to disburse the salary of 154 days which the petitioner had to remain outside the service treating that service as duty. 4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that salary was not paid for 154 days since she was out of service during the said period and the judgment in the writ appeal does not contain any provision to provide reinstatement with retrospective effect. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, it is relevant to note that when O.P.No.4872/2000 was filed, this Court had passed an interim order on 15/2/2000 W.P.C.No.27804 of 2003 3 staying the reversion. When a copy of order was served on the respondents, they took a stand that since the petitioner was relieved on 11/2/2000 she cannot be taken back. Though an application was filed to retain the petitioner in the said post, the said application was dismissed as the reversion had already taken place. In W.A.No.804 of 2000, the Division Bench of this Court had set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed re-instatement of the petitioner as U.D.Clerk in the place where she was working. Ultimately, by the judgment in O.P.No.4872/2000 dated 04/01/2006, there is a direction given to grant all benefits to the petitioner as if she had not been reverted. 6. In the light of the judgment of this Court in O.P.No.4872/2000, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled for all the benefits as if she had not been reverted. The fact that she had not worked during the said period of 154 days is not in dispute. But it is clear from the records especially the judgment in Ext.P1 that she was not permitted to join duty despite an order of stay granted by this Court. Apart from that, this Court, in the judgment in O.P.No.4872/2000, had directed the W.P.C.No.27804 of 2003 4 respondent to give her all service benefits as if the reversion had not taken place. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner's absence from duty is not on account of her own volition but on account of the wrong order or latches on the part of the department for which the petitioner should not be denied salary and other benefits. In the above circumstances, the above writ petition is allowed granting the following reliefs: i) Ext.P3 shall stand set aside. ii) The respondents are directed to provide the petitioner all service benefits as if she had not been reverted and as if she had been working in her position from the date of reversion including salary of 154 days during the period she had to remain outside the service treating the period as duty. (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.27804 of 2003 5 W.P.C.No.27804 of 2003 6 THOMAS.P.JOSEPH,J. Crl.M.C.No. of 200 ORDER 19/01/2011