A. Sari Antony vs State Of Kerala And Ors

The petitioner, who is stated to be working as an Upper Primary School Teacher in the services of C.M.Upper Primary School, Thozhiyoor,

Thrissur - of which the 4th respondent is the Corporate Manager - has filed both these writ petitions seeking corollary reliefs and I, therefore, dispose

of the same together.

As per the petitioner, she was a Rule 51A claimant under the Kerala Education Rules (KER for short) and was granted reappointment on

01/06/2007, as is evident from Ext.P4 order in both these cases. She says that though her appointment was directed to be approved, through Ext.P5

judgment, by this Court - which was confirmed by Ext.P5(a) judgment of a learned Division Bench - she was granted such benefit only with effect

from 01/06/2011, by including her in the 'Teachers Package'.

The petitioner asserts that as long as Exts.P5 and P5(a) judgments are in force, she is entitled to get salary from 01/06/2007 and not from

01/06/2011; and asserts that Government has virtually undone her right accrued from the year 2005, by issuing Ext.P9 order in W.P(C)N.1762 of

2019.

The petitioner contends that Ext.P9 order is illegal, since she was appointed from 28/10/2005 against a regular post, which was approved through

the Government Order produced as Ext.P1 in W.P(C)No.1762 of 2019.

The petitioner further says that as per Exts.P5 and P5(a) judgments, her approval had been directed to be granted with effect from 01/06/2007, but

that she has been given such benefit only from 01/06/2011; and therefore, prays that both these writ petitions be allowed and the Government be

directed to approve her appointment with effect from 01/06/2007, thus leading to the grant of pay and allowances from that date.

The petitioner substantiates her plea relying on Ext.P8(a) judgment, produced along with W.P(C)N.40745 of 2018, whereby, another learned Judge

of this Court had directed the Government to consider her statutory revision for these benefits; and asserts that in spite of this, it has been rejected

through Ext.P9 order in W.P(C)No.1762 of 2019.

I have heard Shri.M.Sajjad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, Shri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose,

appearing for the official respondents.

The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P9 in W.P(C)No.1762 of 2019 cannot be faulted, since Government has considered all the

relevant aspects and have found that the petitioner is not entitled to be approved with effect from 01/06/2007 but only from 01/06/2011, by including

her in the 'Teachers Package'. He, therefore, prays that these writ petitions be dismissed.

When I consider the afore submissions, it is indubitable that Exts.P5 and P5(a) judgments have now become final; and obviously, therefore,

Government was bound to consider its impact before Ext.P9 order in W.P(C)No.1762 of 2019 could have been issued.

However, even on a close reading of the said order, it does not show that any such consideration has been properly made and the petitioner's

approval has been rejected with effect from 01/06/2007, saying that she is entitled only to be approved with effect from 01/06/2011, by including her in

the 'Teachers Package'.

Though there are several reasons this Court can point out why Ext.P9 cannot be approved, I propose not to record them in this judgment, so that

Government can reconsider the matter, taking specific note of the directions in Exts.P5 and P5(a) judgments, since specific declarations have already

been made therein in favour of the petitioner that she is entitled for approval based on Ext.P2 order of appointment produced therein.

Suffice to say, since the petitioner claims to be Rule 51A claimant under the KER, on account of an earlier approved service in the School Ext.P9

cannot find my favour and it is clear that these aspects have not been properly considered therein.

In the afore circumstances, I order these writ petitions and set aside Ext.P9 in W.P(C)No.1762 of 2019 and direct the Government to reconsider the

claim of the petitioner specifically in terms of the directions in Exts.P5 and P5(a)judgments of this Court and after affording an opportunity of being

heard to her, as well as the Manager of the School â€" either physically or through video conferencing â€" thus culminating in an appropriate order

thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.