Y. SARAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) ARGUMENTS have been heard.