JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of March 2021 The petitioner, who is stated to be working as a High School Assistant (HSA) in English in ‘Mattannur, Higher Secondary School’ Kannur, has approached this Court asserting that, in spite of the fact that she was promoted to the present post with effect from 01.06.2015, her pay and allowances - including Revisions on account of the Pay Revision Orders - and such other benefits have not yet been disbursed to her. She, therefore, prays that respondents be directed to disburse her pay and allowances in the post of HSA (English)

with effect from 01.06.2015.

2. In response to the submissions of the petitioner as made by her learned counsel – Sri.M.Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent - Sri.P.P.Abdul Kareem, submitted that this writ petition has been filed suppressing various facts, including that petitioner had been found guilty of certain charges by his client and that Revisions against the same are still pending at the instance of the petitioner before the Government. He submitted that the third respondent has not done anything to the detriment of the petitioner and therefore that, no further orders be issued against his client.

3. Sri.P.M.Manoj – learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submitted that petitioner appears to have been denied pay and allowances only because disciplinary action against her has not yet been concluded; and therefore, the period of suspension has not yet been properly regularized. He added that the period in question, when the petitioner was under suspension, is between 01.06.2015 and 31.08.2017; and that petitioner has been thereafter, receiving her pay and allowances without any fail. He, therefore prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is luculent that it is the assertion of the petitioner that, on account of the vindictive attitude of the Headmaster, she has not been disbursed pay and allowances from 01.06.2015. On the contrary, the Headmaster says that he has no such animosity towards the petitioner; and that he has been acting as per the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules and that perhaps, the petitioner’s grievance is on account of the fact that disciplinary action against her has not yet been concluded.

5. That said, as seen above, the learned Senior Government Pleader, maintains that the period in controversy is only between 01.06.2015 and 31.08.2017, and that the petitioner’s other benefits had already been granted.

6. The afore submissions make it clear that there are factual disputations between the rival parties; and am, therefore, of the firm view that the District Educational Officer (DEO) must look into all the issues, after hearing the parties, thus leading to an appropriate order, without any avoidable delay.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the 2nd respondent – DEO, to immediately hear the petitioner – either physically or through video conferencing and take a decision on the grievances impelled by her in this writ petition, through an appropriate order to be issued, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

It is needless to say that my observations and directions above will not be construed by any person, including the parties herein, that the Statutory Remedies of the petitioner pending before the Government against disciplinary action are, in any manner, interfered or intervened with.