SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 73765

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Radha K – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 15351/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 15351 OF 2025 PETITIONER:

RADHA K., AGED 56 YEARS, W/O SIVANANDAN K.R., PRE-PRIMARY 'AYAH’, GOVERNMENT LP SCHOOL, VETTIPPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 645.

(RESIDING AT KOLLAMPARAMBIL, CHITTOOR WARD, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT)., PIN - 689645 BY ADVS.

V.A.MUHAMMED PRESAD V.G.

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ANNEXE-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691501

4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691501

5 THE HEADMASTER, GOVERNMENT LP SCHOOL, VETTIPPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689645 BY ADV.

SMT.ANIMA M., GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10th day of April, 2025 Pre-primary School started functioning during 2012-

2013 under the control of the School PTA. Smt.Veena V. Pillai was appointed as the Teacher and Smt.P.S.Sreeja as the 'Ayah' in the School. Smt.P.S.Sreeja voluntarily retired from service on 31.03.2013 and the petitioner was appointed in that vacancy from 03.06.2013 and continues to serve in the said post. 2. As per G.O.(MS)No.385/2012/G.Edn. dated

07.12.2012, honorarium was sanctioned to the Pre-Primary employees. Subsequently, as per G.O.(Ms)No.146/2013/G.Edn. dated 25.04.2013, enhanced rate of honorarium was sanctioned to all the employees who were in service on 01.08.2012 and completed at least one year of continuous service, without any eligibility criteria. Further, as per G.O.(MS) No.137/2014/G.Edn. dated 18.07.2014, the Pre-Primary employees who were in service on 01.08.2012 were allowed wages on the basis of a Certificate and Affidavit from the Headmaster. Based on the above Government Orders, the Director of Public Instruction (DPI) issued Order No.NS.4/44009/14/DPI dated 21.07.2014, sanctioning the honorarium, on condition that it shall be reviewed subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition to be filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3. Consequently, the DDE, Pathanamthitta, has directed to submit all the details required as per the above Government orders to the District Educational Officer. As a result, honorarium was sanctioned to Smt.Veena V.Pillai from 01.06.2014 onwards. However, Smt.P.S.Sreeja who was working as ‘Ayah’ from 05.06.2012 to 31.03.2013, even though eligible for honorarium, was not sanctioned honorarium for the reason that proper steps were not taken for the claim.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner who has been appointed in the vacancy of Smt.P.S.Sreeja was also not sanctioned the honorarium. For sanction of honorarium, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Director of General Education through the Assistant Educational Officer. As no action was taken on Ext.P6 representation, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.18669 of 2021 dated 22.07.2024. This Court directed the Director of Public Education to consider the petitioner's application and issue a final order within two months.

5. Due to the delay in implementation of the said order, the petitioner filed Contempt of Court case and thereafter, the Additional Director of General Education heard the petitioner and related parties. As a result, order No.NS(4) 22138/24/D.G.E. Dated 15.12.2024 was issued, rejecting the petitioner's application on baseless grounds. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed a Revision Petition before the Government. It is submitted that from Exts.P1 to P3, the entitlement of the petitioner for honorarium cannot be disputed. Any delay on the part of the Government in resolvi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top