K.SEKHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging Exhibits P6 and P10 orders and seeking directions to the respondents to approve the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 28.1.1992 to 23.7.1997 and grant all consequential benefits. The petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher in the 4th respondent school on 2.7.1990 and the appointment was approved. There was a post of Physical Education Teacher in the High School section and another post in the Upper Primary section, against which one K.K.Girish was working. The petitioner was appointed in the High School section. The post of Physical Education Teacher in the Upper Primary section was reduced in the staff fixation for the year 1990-1991. By Exhibit P2 order dated 2.7.1997, the Government ordered to restore the post in the Upper Primary section and to accommodate Sri.K.K.Girish against the said post and approve his appointment. The said order was challenged by Sri.K.K.Girish and by Exhibit P3 judgment dated 19.8.1998, this Court directed that said K.K.Girish could continue in the High School section as Physical Education Teacher and the petitioner herein, who was the 4th respondent in the said writ petition, could continue in the Upper Primary section. Exhibit P2 order was modified accordingly. The petitioner preferred Exhibit P6 request for release of his salary as Physical Education Teacher. The said request was rejected by Exhibit P6 order by the District Educational Officer stating that the petitioner had not marked his attendance during the period in question. Since the petitioner's appointment was approved on 19.9.1998, his salary was disbursed to him, however withholding the salary for the period from 28.1.1992 to 23.7.1997. Though the petitioner preferred revision before the Government, it was rejected by Exhibit P10 order on the ground of non marking of attendance in the attendance register during the period.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Exhibit P3 judgment itself recorded the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner had been continuously working as Physical Education Teacher in the school. By Exhibit P5 letter, the Headmaster had also specifically informed the District Educational Officer that the petitioner had been attending his duties as Physical Education Teacher from 27.1.1992 to 23.7.1997, since at the relevant time the appointment was not approved and the question as to his accommodation in the Upper Primary or High School section was alive. It is further submitted that the scale of pay and emoluments due to the Physical Education Teachers in the High School and Upper Primary sections being identical and since the petitioner's appointment with effect from 2.7.1990 stood approved by the endorsement to Exhibit P1, there is absolutely no reason for denying salary for the period from 28.1.1992 to 23.7.1997.