Vinayan T.K vs State Of Kerala And Ors

The petitioner, who is stated to be working as a Sanskrit Teacher in the GLP School, Kannur, has approached this Court impugning Exts.P10 and

P12 notices issued to him for recovery of certain amounts, asserting that these proceedings are egregiously contrary to the directions of this Court in

Ext.P9 judgment.

The petitioner says that all issues with respect to his service have already been decided by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment and the orders impugned

in these proceedings were set aside with a consequential direction to the respondents to 'take note of the service of the petitioner on the strength of

the retention as ordered in Ext.P2 till 29.11.2016 for all service benefits'.

The petitioner adds that, after finding so, this Honourable Court had declared that the petitioner will be entitled to the salary for the months of

October and November 2016 and that all amounts due to him as salary shall be calculated and disbursed within a time frame fixed therein. He says

that, therefore, consequent to the declarations in Ext.P9 judgment, the respondents could not have issued Exts.P10 and P12 and prays that the same

be set aside and the 3rd respondent be directed to release his salary due in October and November 2016; and in October and November 2017; as also

the increments due from 01.01.2016, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader â€" Sri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that the contentions of the petitioner are untenable since, as per

the Government Orders bearing number GO(MS)No.176/2016/G.EDN dated 15.10.2016 and GO(MS)No.82/2018/G.EDN dated 08.02.2018, he

cannot mount any challenge, as impelled in this Writ Petition, since the said orders make it clear that he is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

In reply, Sri.P.P.Abdul Kareem â€" learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client has also sought for a declaration that the afore

Government Orders are not applicable to him because Ext.P9 judgment declares the position affirmatively as far as he is concerned and without

leaving any room for doubt. He, therefore, prayed that the aforementioned Government Orders be declared not applicable to his client and that the

other reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition be allowed.

I have considered the afore submissions and have also gone through Ext.P9 judgment very closely. After analysing the factual circumstances

involved, this Court had held as under in the said judgment:

In the above view of the matter, the contention taken by the respondents to the effect that the petitioner's service from June 2016 onwards till the date

on which he joined the new school on deployment cannot be taken into account for any purpose, is unsustainable. This is also in view of the fact that

the petitioner had continued in the same school on the basis of the directions contained in Ext.P2 staff fixation order itself. In the light of retention of

the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be denied salary for the months of October and November 2016. The entire period till the

date of relief of the petitioner on 29.11.2016 is to be taken into account for payment of salary and other benefits to the petitioner. The impugned orders

are therefore set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to take note of the service of the petitioner on the strength of the retention as

ordered in Ext.P2 till 29.11.2016 for all service benefits. The petitioner shall be entitled to salary for the months of October and November 2016 as

well. All the amounts the petitioner is entitled to as salary shall be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Obviously, therefore, the respondents cannot rely upon the Government Orders, afore mentioned by the learned Government Pleader, to act in any

manner contrary to the declarations in the said judgment. It is, therefore, ineluctable that the said Government Orders, to the extent to which it goes

against the declarations in Ext.P9, would have no legs to stand on, as far as the petitioner is concerned. It is, therefore, not necessary for this Court to

consider the merits of the said Government Orders because, in any event of the matter, as long as it goes in contrary to Ext.P9, it cannot be enforced

against the petitioner.

In the afore circumstances, I have no doubt in my mind that the 3rd respondent could not have issued Exts.P10 and P12 proceedings against the

petitioner and that the matter will have to be reconsidered by the said Authority, taking note of the declarations in Ext.P9 at the earliest.

Resultantly, this Writ Petition is ordered, setting aside Exts.P10 and P12; with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to issue appropriate

orders with respect to the petitioner's claim for salary for the months of October and November 2016 and for the months of October and November

2017, as also the increments due from 01.01.2016 onwards, strictly in compliance with Ext.P9 judgment, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later

than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

I make it clear that the directions in this judgment are peremptory in nature and that no extensions will be granted to the respondents if they fail to act

within the time frame fixed herein; and they will also be liable for the full consequences flowing from any such wilful failure particularly because

Ext.P9 had been delivered as early as on 07.02.2018, directing the release of salary to the petitioner for the months of October and November 2016.