Court mandates timely consideration of revision petitions relating to pay scale adjustments under educational appointment rules.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2026 The M.M.E.T High School, Melmuri is an aided School, under the administrative jurisdiction of the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner was appointed as HSA (Urdu) in the School with effect from 25.01.2012 against an additional division vacancy. Government ordered that if the term of appointment of an incumbent does not exceed one academic year even if the duration of the vacancy in which he is appointed is one academic year or more his appointment shall be approved only on daily wage basis.

2. Appointment of the petitioner was approved only on daily wage basis from 25.01.2012 to 11.03.2012 dehors the fact that she was appointed against an additional division vacancy from 25.01.2012 onwards. But, the petitioner continued in the School till 31.03.2012. Later, the above provisions in G.O.(P).No.104/2008/G.Edn dated 10.06.2008 was interfered with by the Division Bench of this Court in Unni Narayanan K. and others v. State of Kerala and others [2009 (2) KHC 550] . Though SLP was moved by the Government, the judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Sneha Cheriyan [2013 (1) KLT 755 (SC)].

3. Following the same, Government issued Circular No.44977/J2/2013/G.Edn dated 14.10.2015 and clarified that the Teachers appointed for a period of more than one academic year against vacancies occurred due to death, retirement promotion, resignation, etc. will be entitled to get regular scale of pay irrespective of the time in which they are appointed during the course of the academic year. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to get approval from 25.01.2012 onwards in the Scale of Pay.

4. Seeking approval from 25.01.2012 onwards on Scale of Pay basis along with vacation salary, the petitioner moved a Revision Petition before the Government. It is maintainable as per the Judgment reported inRavindra Babu v. State of Kerala[1987 (1) KLT 472]. The petitioner was appointed against a permanent vacancy, there is no justification in denying approval on scale of basis with effect from 25.01.2012 onwards, contends the petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that she was appointed as HSSA (Urdu) with effect from 25.01.2012 against an additional division vacancy and since the appointment is in the midst of academic year, initially approval was granted from 25.01.2012 to 11.03.2012 on daily wage basis and from 02.06.2012 onwards on Scale of Pay basis. The petitioner is entitled to scale of pay for the period from 25.01.2012.

7. Be that as it may, from the pleadings, I find that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 Revision Petition before the 1^st respondent. Ext.P5 being one filed invoking the provisions of the KER , it is only appropriate that the revisional authority considers the same and passes appropriate orders within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 within a period of three months after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and taking note of Ext.P7.

Sd/-