AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—The petitioner has come up before this Court with a direction to the respondents to sanction and disburse the salary to the petitioner for the period of appointment covered by Exts. P6 and P7 together with interest. The petitioner is a Rule 51A claimant. She worked as HSA Hindi under the third respondent from 9.1.1984 to 5.4.1984 and later from 2.1.1986 to 31.3.1986. As per the directions contained in Ext. P1 judgment, she was given appointment. However, the appointment was approved only notionally. The petitioner demitted her office on 30.4.2007. Since she was denied salary, she filed a representation before the second respondent which was rejected as per Ext. P2. Against that, she filed Ext. P3 revision before the Government under Rule 92 Chapter XIVA KER. This Court by Ext. P4 judgment directed the Government to dispose of Ext. P3 revision. However, the Government has concurred with Ext. P2 and rejected Ext. P3 revision. Consequently, the petitioner was denied salary for appointment given pursuant to Ext. P1 judgment. Thus, she has come up before this Court.
In the counter filed by the respondent State, they maintained the stand that the request of the petitioner could not be entertained since her appointment could not be effected in time. According to the State, she could not perform her duty as a teacher during the period covered by the appointment order and therefore she is not eligible to get salary for the period and the Government exchequer need not bear loss for the wrongful action of the Manager.
According to the State, there is no provision in the KER to disburse pay and allowance to a teacher who has not performed her duty. However, the respondent State admitted that the petitioner was a rightful claimant to be appointed in the vacancy of HSA Hindi which arose on 2.7.1998 against the leave vacancy of Smt. P.A. Rugmini Amma and therefore, the Manager was directed to appoint her with effect from 2.7.1998 in the above leave vacancy. Thereafter the Manager has issued appointment order appointing the petitioner as HSA (Hindi) from 27.7.1998 to 29.9.1998 and L.G. Hindi Teacher with effect from 1.6.2004 to 30.4.2007 as per proceedings dated 25.7.2007 and 4.9.2007. However, her appointment was approved notionally as she has not actually performed her duties as HSA in the school during the above period.
Arguments have been heard.
Admittedly, the petitioner is a Rule 51A claimant and she was denied appointment by the third respondent.
This Court interfered in the matter vide Ext. P1 judgment and accordingly, she was given appointment and the same has approved. However, it was only a notional approval.
It appears from the matters now placed on record that the third respondent Manager was responsible for the denial of appointment of the petitioner in spite of her statutory claim.
It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent is bound to pay salary to the petitioner for the periods covered by the appointment orders and thereafter the first respondent can recover the same from the third respondent Manager.
In support of the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to a decision of this Court in State of Kerala Vs. V.J. Joseph Ceasar In that case, there was a wrong abolishment of a post of music teacher which was later set aside by this Court. This Court held that the teacher is entitled for the salary for the period she was kept out of service. The general rule ''no pay for no work'' is not applicable to the present case as it stands on a different footing.
The third respondent did not appoint the petitioner. The second respondent did not take any steps to ensure appointment to her notwithstanding the statutory mandate contained in Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA KER. Therefore, this Court is of the definite view that the petitioner is entitled for the salary for the appointment covered by Exts. P6 and P7 and she need not suffer on account of the wrong committed by the third respondent Manager.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to sanction and disburse the salary of the petitioner for the period of appointment covered by Exts. P6 and P7 together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date on which the payment was due.
It is hereby made clear that the first respondent shall be at liberty to recover the same from the third respondent Manager after effecting the payment as above.