AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner, who has been working as HSA (Malayalam) under the 4th respondent, was granted promotion as HSST (Malayalam) as per Ext.P1
order dated 24.07.2017. It is stated that the 3rd respondent rejected the proposal for approval of the same. The Manager has preferred an appeal
Ext.P3 before the second respondent.
Petitioner points out that subsequent to the appointment as HSST (Malayalam), she is not paid even the salary attached to post of HSA
(Malayalam).
It is seen that petitioner has been working as HSA (Malayalam) from 08.07.2003 onwards with approval. Therefore even assuming that the
approval is not granted for her appointment as HSST (Malayalam), she is entitled to continue as HSA (Malayalam) as long as there is a sanctioned
post. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in making payment towards the post of HSA (Malayalam) as she will continue to hold lien in that post, till
approval is granted in the post of HSST (Malayalam).
Therefore, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P3 appeal submitted by the Manager, after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, 4th respondent and any other person, who is likely to be affected, within a period 'two months' from the date of receipt of a
copy of the judgment.
In the meanwhile, there shall be a direction to the 6th respondent to see that the salary is paid to petitioner as admissible to the HSA (Malayalam). The
5th respondent shall present the bill before the 6th respondent.