IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17222 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- AYSHA I., (L.P.S.A., A.M.L.P.S., NEERAD), CHALIL HOUSE, P.O.VILAYIL, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. MR.R.SUDHISH MRS.M.MANJU MRS.K.R.RANJITH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE HEADMASTER, A.M.L.P.S., NEERAD, P.O.MUTHUVALUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE MANAGER, A.M.L.P.S., NEERAD, P.O.MUTHUVALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 17222 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as Lower Primary School Teacher in A.M.L.P School. Her appointment was approved on 15.07.2002. Thereafter, she had also worked from 15.07.2003 till 14.07.2004. The second respondent found that the school was not having sufficient strength for retaining a division. The said order of the second respondent was unsuccessfully challenged by the Manger before various authorities. The contention of the petitioner is that despite the division fall she was permitted to work and she had actually worked as LPSA for the period from 15.07.2002 to 14.07.2004. Thereupon she approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.16727/2009 with the prayer for a direction to approve her appointment and also for a direction to disburse the salary for the period she had worked in the School. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the petitioner got WP (C) NO. 17222 of 2010 2 regular appointment in the School on 12.07.2006. Pursuant to the said appointment the pay of the petitioner as L.P.S.A. was fixed reckoning her earlier service. 2. The 4th respondent, the Headmaster of the School has now, received Exhibit-P1 notice from the second respondent carrying objections with respect to the fixation of her pay. It is stated therein, that the continuous service of the petitioner could be taken only with effect from 15.07.2004. Pursuant to the said notice (Exhibit-P1) the petitioner had submitted her explanation as per Exhibit P2. After considering the objections raised in Exhibit P2 the second respondent has passed Exhibit P3. As per Exhibit P3 second respondent has rejected the objections raised by the petitioner and directed the petitioner to refund the excess amount drawn based on the fixation pursuant to the appointment on 12.07.2006. It is in the said circumstances this writ petition has been filed. WP (C) NO. 17222 of 2010 3 3. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the order for refunding the excess amount, alleged to have been obtained by the petitioner on account of the aforesaid wrong fixation of pay pursuant to his appointment on 12.07.2006. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the fixation of pay and the consequential order of recovery, the petitioner has to approach the Director of Public Instructions. In these circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions, this writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Director of Public Instructions challenging Exhibit P3. In case the petitioner approaches the Director of Public Instructions within two weeks from date of receipt of a copy this judgment, with proper petition challenging Exhibit P3 order, the Director of Public Instructions shall consider the same and pass there on within two months from today. In case the petitioner WP (C) NO. 17222 of 2010 4 prefers such a petition within the stipulated time, no recovery pursuant to Exhibit P3 shall be effected till an order is passed thereon in terms of the above direction. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. rkc