IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP.NO. 26423 OF 1999(U) ----------------------- PETITIONER --------------- CHERIYA PENNU P.T., W/O KANNAN K.U., AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT IRIPINCHEEDAMKUNNU, MUNAMTHODU HARIJAN WELFARE COLONY, THAMARASSERYU P.O., KOZHIKODE – 673 573. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.J.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION ® DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DISTRUCT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.T.MUHAMOOD. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.44581/99 IN O.P.26423/99 //DISMISSED// 16.6.2011 SD/- (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) APPENDIX EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 17.8.1974. EXT.P1(A): TRUE COPY OF CONDUCT CERTIFICATE DATED 21.4.1975. EXT.P1(B): TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 26.5.76. EXT.P1(C): TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 11.11.1977. EXT.P1(D): TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 11.11.77. EXT.P1(E): TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.3.80. EXT.P1(F): TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.3.80. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TALUK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER FOR SCHEDULED CASTE, KOZHIKODE TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 13.10.84 ISSUED FROM THE PRINCIPAL EXTENSION TRAINING CENTRE, TALIPARAMBA. EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.A6/23457/84 DT.4.8.84 IN RESPECT OF THE APPOINTMENT OF LPSA ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE DATED 4.8.84. EXT.P5: PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DT.6.3.98 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THAMARASSERY. EXT.P6: PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.7.10.98 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P7: PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15.10.98 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JOINT SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13. 2.96 ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 19.6.97 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 3.7.98 IN O.P.NO.12449/98 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.24.3.99 PASSED BY THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ON EXT.P9. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.522/ EDN. DATED 20.5.58. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.293/EDN. DATED 19.8.58 EXT. TRUE COPY OF GO(RT)NO.387/99/G.EDN. DATED THIRUVANTHAPURAM 27.1.99 TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- Original Petition No.26423 Of 1999 -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JUNE, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the order by which her claim for exemption for acquiring TTC qualification was rejected, as she was only having 14 years of service. She is claiming exemption from acquiring the qualification, for grant of full pension. 2. The petitioner is a retired P.D.Teacher, who retired from service on 30.6.1998 on superannuation from the Korangad Government Lower Primary School. She belongs to Valluvan Community( under the SC/ST category). She was appointed under the 'Special Employment Programme' of the Education Department and at that time she was having 41 years of age. She was recruited through the Public Service Commission. 3. It is pointed out that during the period of her service, she could not complete her TTC and hence she was only provided minimum of the pay scale. It is pointed out in the Writ Petition that during different spells, she was having temporary O.P.No.26423/99 -2- appointments in clerical posts and Exhibits P1(a) to P1(f) are copies of the documents produced in support of the same. 4. It is also pointed out in the Writ Petition that from 2.2.1981 to 19.8.1984, the petitioner had worked as a Balawadi Teacher in the Koodathai Balawadi-cum-Feeding Centre on an honourary payment. 5. According to the petitioner, the absence of qualification has resulted in denial of time bound higher grade promotion and in these circumstances the petitioner submitted a representation before the Assistant Educational Officer, Thamarassery. She was given a reply as per Exhibit P5 by the Assistant Educational Officer that the Government alone can grant exemption as the qualifying service is less than 15 years, and thereafter she filed a representation as per Exhibit P6 before the 1st respondent. The petitioner points out that in similar circumstances the Government had granted exemption in favour of other teachers and in these circumstances the petitioner O.P.No.26423/99 -3- approached this Court by filing O.P.No.12449/98 and this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders as per Exhibit P10 judgment. Exhibit P11 is the order passed by the Government. 6. Exhibit P12 is the order by which the Government specifies that for granting exemption, the person should have 15 years' service as teacher and he should have completed 40 years of age also. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a reading of Exhibit P15 order will show that the Government granted permanent exemption to one Smt.K.K.Janaki, P.D.Teacher who is a similarly placed person like the petitioner, even though she was not having 15 years of service. It is pointed out that the benefit was granted to her by way of sympathetic consideration. It is further pointed out that under O.P.No.26423/99 -4- Rule 18(a) of Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, if the period of probation could be declared after counting the provisional service, then the petitioner will be having more than 15 years of service. 9. The learned Government Pleader submitted that so far as Exhibit P15 is concerned, it is not a similar case. Therein the person concerned was having three more years of service for her retirement than the petitioner. It is in that circumstances that Exhibit P15 order is passed. A reading of Exhibit P15 will show that the person concerned had three more years of service left before her retirement and her total service will be more than 17 years. 10. What is provided in Exhibit P12 for grant of exemption is a total period of 15 years, which is lacking in the case of the petitioner. Whether the petitioner could be considered for exemption in the light of the above factual scenario is the next question. O.P.No.26423/99 -5- 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Government should have taken a sympathetic view of the matter, as the petitioner is getting only minimum pension and she was not getting due salary as well as higher grade benefits, as in respect of other teachers. 12. It is clear from Exhibit P12 that the exemption can be granted only if 15 years service is there as P.D.Teacher and no provision for relaxation is also there as far as the said period is concerned. Exemption cannot therefore be claimed as a matter of right, as it depends upon the terms and conditions provided in the order. If that be so, clearly, the petitioner is not a person who is eligible for grant of exemption. The provisional service that is claimed by the petitioner is under different institutions and that also not as a P.D.Teacher. As far as reckoning of provisional service is concerned, there should be some enabling provision under any of the executive orders or under any of the statutory rules and the same are also absent here. O.P.No.26423/99 -6- 13. In that view of the matter the petitioner is not entitled to succeed in the Writ Petition. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is getting only minimum pension and she belongs to a weaker section of the society, namely, Valluvan Community. 15. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the minimum pension, etc. is a matter which the Government alone can consider, since individual considerations alone can result in any such benefit. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed. But, it is open to the petitioner to move the Government for enhancement of the minimum pension or for any other benefits. No costs. Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn