LAWS(KER)-2017-1-355

SREELEKHA VARAKKOTH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On January 30, 2017
Sreelekha Varakkoth Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had worked as Upper Primary School Assistant from 6.6.1994 to 30.9.1997 on the strength of an appointment order issued by the Manager. In a dispute raised by a senior claimant, it was found by Exhibit P3 judgment that the contesting respondents were entitled to appointment as UPSA in the vacancy to which the petitioner was appointed. Consequential order was also passed directing that the contesting respondents be appointed as UPSA in the said vacancy. It is submitted that on 1.10.1997, the contesting respondents were appointed against the vacancy to which the petitioner had been appointed. The petitioner was, therefore, thrown out of service on 1.10.1997. The petitioner preferred representations before the Government as well as the educational authorities seeking disbursal of her salary for the period from 6.6.1994 to 30.9.1997 as also seeking approval of the appointment to render her a Rule 51A claimant. Exhibit P7 is a representation preferred before the Chief Minister, which was forwarded to the Government and by Exhibit P8 communication, Exhibit P7 representation was rejected by the Government. It is stated in Exhibit P8 that the existing vacancies were filled up by senior Rule 51A claimants and there is no vacancy to accommodate the petitioner and that since the petitioner did not have approved regular service, her name cannot be included in the list of retrenched teachers. The petitioner relies on Exhibits P10 and P11 to contend that no other teacher had been paid salary for the period from 6.6.1994 to 30.9.1997 in respect of the post held by her. The only claim now raised before me in this writ petition by learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to payment of salary for the period from 6.6.1994 to 30.9.1997.