STATE OF KERALA Vs. P.R. LUCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question raised in this appeal filed by the State is whether the learned single Judge was justified in interferring with Exts.P8 and P9, and declaring that the first respondent would be entitled to receive pension for the reckoning the period when she was kept out of service.

(2.) We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

(3.) The first respondent was appointed as a Needle Work Teacher in the school of the second respondent, in a retirement vacancy with effect from 2.6.1986. By Ext.P2 order, on the ground that there was no sanctioned post and that she was not qualified, the Assistant Educational Officer rejected approval of the appointment. The appeal filed by the Manager was rejected by the Director of Public Instruction and finally she was terminated from service with effect from 16.1.1992. A revision filed by the first respondent was also rejected. That order of the Government was again questioned in O.P.No.19051 of 1995. By Ext.P6 judgment, this Court directed the Government to reconsider the revision in the light of Ext.P7 Government Order dated 23.3.2001. It was accordingly that Ext.P8 order was passed where the Government ordered approval of the appointment of the first respondent with effect from 2.6.1986, clarifying that the period she was kept out of service will be treated as leave without allowances and that the period would not be counted for any service benefits. This order was communicated to the first respondent by Ext.P9. It was seeking to quash Exts.P8 and P9 and for consequential benefits, the writ petition was filed.