STATE OF KERALA Vs. SUSHAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 7/6/2022 in W.P.(C) No.19394 of 2019. Respondents 1 to 5 in the writ petition are the appellants. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment for convenience, as they appear in the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in a private college affiliated to the University of Calicut (the University) on 2/2/1994. The college is covered by the Direct Payment Scheme of the State Government. The appointment of the petitioner was against a vacancy that arose by reason of the grant of leave without allowance to a regular teacher in the college. Ext.P1 is the order of appointment of the petitioner. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the University as also the Directorate of Collegiate Education with effect from 4/2/1994, the date on which the petitioner joined duty pursuant to the appointment. While the petitioner was working as such, a regular vacancy arose in the college on 1/4/1997 and the appointment of the petitioner was consequently shifted by the management to that vacancy. Later, the petitioner was placed as Senior Scale Lecturer with effect from 4/2/1999 and as selection grade lecturer with effect from 4/2/2004. The placements aforesaid of the petitioner were also approved by the University and the Directorate of Collegiate Education. While so, the petitioner retired from service on 30/3/2019.

(3.) In Ext.P9 verification report issued by the office of the Accountant General (A&E) in connection with the sanctioning of pensionary benefits to the petitioner, the qualifying service of the petitioner was, however, shown as 22 years excluding the period between 4/2/1994 and 31/3/1997 during which the petitioner had worked in the leave vacancy. According to the petitioner, the said period is also liable to be reckoned as qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits to her. The petitioner, therefore, preferred a representation before the Director of Collegiate Education for appropriate orders for reckoning the service rendered by her in the leave vacancy also as qualifying service. The said representation was rejected as per Ext.P14 communication informing the petitioner that she is not entitled to reckon the said period as qualifying service. The writ petition was instituted, in the above background, challenging Ext.P9 verification report to the extent it provides that the qualifying service of the petitioner for pension would be only 22 years, and Ext.P14 communication. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that insofar as the service rendered by her in the leave vacancy has been reckoned for granting increments as also for placements in the senior scale and selection grade, she is entitled to reckon the said period for the purpose of pensionary benefits as well. The learned Single Judge took the view that the nature of vacancy in which the petitioner was initially appointed would not be of any consequence in the matter of fixing her qualifying service for pension inasmuch as the placements of the petitioner in the senior scale as also in the selection grade, reckoning the period during which she had worked in the leave vacancy, were approved by the Director of Collegiate Education. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed at the admission stage itself quashing Ext.P9 verification report to the extent to which it was challenged as also Ext.P14 communication and directing the official respondents to issue fresh orders sanctioning pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The State and its officials are aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge and hence, this appeal.