Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.ASHA, J
C O SEBY – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 29879/2016
Salary - Teachers' Employment - Writ Petition - Section 51 of the Education Act - The court held that the non-payment of salaries for the specified period was unjustified due to the approval of appointments despite management disputes, thus mandating payment of dues.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, teachers at a school, filed a petition due to non-payment of their salaries from 30.08.2013 to 30.04.2016, even though their appointments were approved by the government.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the delay in salary payments was unwarranted as the petitioners' appointments were duly approved, and the underlying management dispute did not affect their payment.
Issues: Whether the non-payment of teachers' salaries for the specified period was justified given the approval of their appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an ongoing challenge to the approval of the petitioners' appointments, the court ruled that withholding their salary was not permissible.
Final Decision: The court ordered the payment of salary arrears to the petitioners within three months.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, who are working as Higher Secondary School Teachers in St.Francis Higher Secondary School, Mattom, have filed this writ petition pointing out that they have not been paid salary for the period from 30.08.2013 to 30.04.2016 though from 1.5.2016 onwards they are being paid salary. Appointment of the petitioners were approved as per Exts.P3 to P6, on the basis of the orders Exts.P1 and P2 issued by the Government. There was a delay in approving their appointment on account of the pendency of the management dispute. However, the Government after hearing the petitioners ordered approval of their appointment, despite the pendency of the management dispute, w.e.f 30.08.2013.
2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that salary due to the petitioners for the aforesaid period was not paid on the basis of the pendency of W.P(c).No.21748 of
2016 challenging the appointments made by the management.
W.P(C) No.29879 of 2016-H 2
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
4. Since the competency of the management alone is under challenge when appointments of the petitioners are already approved and their approval is not under challenge, there is no reason for not paying the arrears of salary due to the petitioners for the period from 30.08.2013 to 30.04.2016.
Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to see that the arrears of salary due to the petitioners for the period from 30.08.2013 to 30.04.2016 are paid, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
