SOMUKUTTAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in these Original Petitions are retired District Educational Officers. While working as High School Assistants, they were promoted as Assistant Educational Officers (AEO). By GO (P) No. 57/80/G.Edn. dated 22.5.1980 the post of AEO was upgraded and the scale of pay was made equivalent to that of Headmaster. Consequently, the petitioners were reverted as High School Assistants. Some of the persons effected by the above reversion filed Original Petitions before this Court. Finally, the matter was taken up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declared that the reversions were illegal. The above decision is reported in C. C. Padmanabhan v. Director of Public Instruction ( AIR 1981 SC 64 ). The operative portion of the above decision reads as follows:

(2.) Claiming the benefit of the above judgment other persons who were reverted filed appeals before the Supreme Court. Those appeals, CA Nos. 4191 of 4194 of 1983 also were allowed by the Supreme Court by judgment dated 11.1.1985. Again the Supreme Court has to clarify the decision referred to above in CMP Nos. 35840-42/1985,36618/ 1985,5209/1986 and 46505-08/1985. In the order dated 22.1.1987 the Supreme Court clarified the matter as follows:

(3.) By way of implementation of the above judgments/orders Government issued GO (Rt) No. 1951/87/G.Edn. dated 4.7.1987. By the above order the Government granted the benefit of the judgments of the Supreme Court to 52 persons who approached the Supreme Court. Claiming similar benefits the present petitioners filed O.P. No. 9053 of 1987 before this Court which resulted in Ext. P1 judgment. A Division Bench of this Court in Ext. PI judgment held that orders passed by the Government refusing the benefits of the directions contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court could not be sustained. It was also made clear that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits contained in the directions given by the Supreme Court. Thus, the Government was directed to consider afresh the case of the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders implementing the directions contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court.