AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramachandran Nair, J.—The review petitioner is the appellant in the writ appeal. Shortly stated, the necessary facts are the following: The review petitioner filed O.P. No. 22489/2002 challenging two orders passed by the Government, produced as Exts.P4 and P6. The original petition was dismissed confirming the view taken by the Government. In the writ appeal filed by the review petitioner herein, the order Ext.P4 was modified by taking the view that the review petitioner is entitled for salary for the period from 15.7.1994 to 31.3.1995. It was specifically held that for the period 1995-96 she is not entitled to salary but only for the benefit of protection order with effect from 15.2.1996.
The review is sought only on a short ground. The contention that is raised now is that the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary till 14.7.1995, i.e. from 1.4.1995 to 14.7.1995.
Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the Rp 262/2009 - 2- Government in Ext.P4 found that the petitioner was entitled to continue in the school during 1994-1995 and only because an audit objection, she was not accommodated and the audit objection was subsequently dropped also. It is submitted that since the Division Bench has now found that the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary for the period from 15.7.1994 to 31.3.1995, the eligibility for salary from 1.4.1995 to 15.7.1995 also ought to have been considered. At least the salary during vacation should have been granted.
We have considered the points raised. Even going by para 1 of the writ petition it is clear that the approval of appointment of the petitioner was till 31.3.1995. During the academic year 1994-95 there was a fall in division and the authorities initially disallowed the petitioner''s continuance. The Government in Ext.P4 found in favour of the petitioner and held that she was liable to be retained for the period from 15.7.1994 till 31.3.1995 on condition that her service benefits will be given notionally for the year 1994-95. It was also found that she will be entitled for notional protection with effect from 15.2.1996 onwards in the light of the protection order issued as per G.O.(MS) No. 60/96/GE dated 15.2.1996 which was only prospective effect.
The Division Bench in the judgment, found that the petitioner was Rp 262/2009 - 3- actually working for the period from 15.7.1994 to 31.3.1995 also and in that context she was found eligible to be paid salary for the said period.
We find that there is no apparent error in the judgment requiring any modification of the direction. The plea now raised by the review petitioner does not appear to have been raised before the Division Bench also when the writ appeal was heard. Hence, the present contentions cannot at all be accepted. As the review petitioner has admitted that approval was only upto 31.3.1995, we find no reason to accede to the present demand.
Hence, the review petition is dismissed. No costs.