Valsala Kumari Devi M v State of Kerala and Others

W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..1.. ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 20TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 41902 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **VALSALA KUMARI DEVI M, AGED 57 YEARS, D/O. THE LATE P NARAYANAN NAIR, PRINCIPAL (RETIRED), B.A.R.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, BOVIKAN, MULIYAR POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 542, RESIDING AT SREEVALSAM, CHATTANCHAL, P.O.THEKKIL,CHANGALA,KASARAGOD-671 541.** **BY ADV.SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) ALONG WITH ADVS. M/S.K.RADHAMANI AMMA & H.VISHNUDAS** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,SANTHI NAGAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **3 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,REGIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR-670 003.** - **4 MANAGER, B.A.R. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, BOVIKAN,P.O.MULIYAR,KASARAGOD-671 542.** W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 **==> picture [19 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** **5 PRINCIPAL,** **B.A.R.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, BOVIKAN P.O.MULIYAR,KASARAGOD-671 542.** **ADV.SRI.MURALI PALLATH FOR R-4 ADV. SRI.C.K.RAJASEKHARA PANICKER** **SMT.K.G.SAROJINI, G.P.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2018 AND HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 9.2.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..3.. MOHAMMED NIAS C. P. , J. ===================================== W. P. (C) No. 41902 of 2018 ===================================== Dated this the 9[th] day of February, 2024 ## J U D G M E N T The petitioner was initially appointed as a High School Assistant (Social Studies) with effect from 13.7.1990, as seen from Ext.P-1. The petitioner states that she satisfied the eligibility conditions and possessed the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (History) _(hereinafter referred to as 'HSST(History)'),_ in terms of the G.O. dated 27.6.1990. When a vacancy arose in the school during the academic year 2000-2001, the petitioner, as well as one Sri.M.K.Aravindhakshan Nambiar (HSAs working in the school) applied for selection to the post of HSST(History) against the said vacancy. Though the petitioner was senior to Sri.M.K.Aravindhakshan Nambiar, the 4[th] respondent-Manager promoted and posted Sri.M.K.Aravindhakshan Nambiar as Higher Secondary School Teacher with effect from 1.8.2000, overlooking the seniority and suitability of the W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** petitioner. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court. The challenge was repelled by the Single Bench as well as the Division Bench, and the matter was taken up before the Supreme Court wherein, by Ext.P-2 judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4480/2007, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as HSST. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed, and direction was given to the respondents to pass appropriate orders appointing the petitioner as HSST(History) with retrospective effect from 1.8.2000 notionally and to grant fixation in the scale of pay of HSST accordingly. It is specified that the arrears, consequent on the same, less the amount received as salary as HSA, will also be disbursed accordingly. 2. When the appointment order was issued on 16.2.2008, pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court, which is marked as Ext.P-3, the second round of litigation started as the appointment was approved only with effect from 16.2.2008. This led the petitioner to file WP(C). No.9508/2009, which was partly allowed by judgment dated 22.2.2011 (Ext.P-5) directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as HSST(History) with retrospective effect from 1.8.2000 notionally and to W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..5.. grant fixation in the scale of pay of HSST. It was made clear in the said judgment that, since the petitioner was working as an HSA, she would be entitled only to the difference of salary payable to the post of HSST and that the same would not affect the seniority of Higher Secondary School Teachers appointed earlier than the date of Ext.P-13 therein, which was 16.2.2008. 3. A writ appeal was filed against the said judgment as W.A.No.421/2011, and by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 23.6.2011 (Ext.P-6), it was found that as far as the claim of the petitioner for seniority is concerned, going by the notional promotion granted to her, she is eligible for all benefits with effect from the date of arising of the vacancy, as she would have been appointed on that day had a right decision been taken. The management's contention that she be ranked above the other Higher Secondary School Teachers in the school was rejected again, holding that she would have been senior to them had she been appointed on 1.8.2000 (the date of arising of the vacancy). In that view of the matter, the writ appeal was allowed, and her entitlement to senior was found with the consequence granting her retrospective W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..6.. promotion and reckoned the petitioner's seniority with effect from 1.8.2000 along with notional promotion and other benefits granted with effect from that date. The said order was complied with, and the Government issued an order dated 24.11.2011 that fixed the seniority of the petitioner as HSST with effect from 1.8.2000 and the period during which she was notionally promoted was directed to be reckoned for all service benefits. 4. It was found in Ext.P-7 that the eligibility for her promotion was denied by the Manager of the school, and he had committed a mistake while promoting an ineligible person thus, the Director of Higher Secondary Education was directed to take necessary steps to recover the excess pay to be disbursed to the beneficiary from the Manager invoking Chapter III Rule 7 of the Kerala Education Rules with penal interest and also, to initiate disciplinary action against the concerned official who had approved the irregular promotion and to submit a compliance report to the Government. It is not known whether any recovery has been made from the Manager or action taken against the erring officer. 5. By Ext.P-8 dated 23.7.2012, pursuant to the appointment order W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 **==> picture [18 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** issued by the Manager, the Regional Deputy Director approved the appointment of the petitioner as HSST(History) with effect from 1.8.2000. It is seen that even this order was passed after the petitioner had initiated the Contempt of Court proceedings, as Cont. Case (C) No. 984/2012, alleging non-compliance of the judgment in W.A.No.421/2011 dated 23.6.2011. The Division Bench, by the judgment of the Contempt of Court case dated 17.8.2012 (Ext.P-9), found that the appellant's seniority was approved in terms of the writ appeal judgment mentioned above with effect from 1.8.2000 and, accordingly, closed the Contempt. By this, the second round of litigation the petitioner had instituted came to an end. 6. The third phase of litigation started when a vacancy for the post of Principal arose on 31.3.2010. The petitioner staked her claim through a letter to the Regional Deputy Director dated 22.3.2010. The petitioner had also, by Ext.P-11, moved the Director of Higher Secondary Education, requesting to promote her to the post of Principal. The Director, by Ext.P-12 dated 8.10.2012, directed the Regional Deputy Director to take necessary action for the promotion of the petitioner to the W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..8.. post of Principal. The Regional Deputy Director had, in turn, directed the Manager to take necessary action for the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Principal. The Manager then took a stand, which is evident from Ext.P-16 dated 23.3.2013, that the petitioner was allowed promotion in seniority as HSST with effect from 1.8.2000 notionally and, therefore, has not officiated in the post of HSST from 1.8.2000, as such did not have the requisite 6 years of teaching experience in the post of HSST, which was an eligibility condition for being appointed as Principal. The Director, by Ext.P-17 order dated 30.4.2013, found that the seniority of the petitioner in the post of HSST was fixed with effect from 1.8.2000 and that the period during which she was notionally promoted to be reckoned for all service benefits. Hence, the action of the Manager in appointing one Smt. Lathakutty, as Principal in the place of the petitioner was found to be irregular and disobeyance of the Government's decision. 7. In the meantime, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the Manager had imposed a major penalty following the allegations of giving incorrect address of the Manager and the Principal in the Contempt of Court case, Cont. Case (C) No. 984/2012, W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..9.. filed by the petitioner. The Director found that no punishment could have been issued without the previous sanction of the competent authority and the issue of promotion was directed to be considered after getting the Government's clarification. In Ext.P-18 order dated 13.1.2014 also, there is a direction to recover the monetary benefits paid to the petitioner from the Manager with 18% penal interest. The petitioner had to file WP(C). No. 6376/2014 and by the judgment of this Court dated 30.7.2014 (Ext.P-19), the question as to whether the eligibility of the petitioner for being promoted to the post of Principal with effect from 1.4.2010 was directed to be considered by the 1[st] respondent. In the meantime, the person who was appointed as the Principal had filed WP(C). No. 26937/2013 claiming the post of Principal and by the judgment of this Court dated 6.11.2013 (Ext.P-20), it was found that the petitioner herein was senior and that the promotion of the present petitioner was in tune with the earlier judgments of this Court and rejected the writ petition. By Ext.P-21 order dated 10.9.2014, it was found that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the Manager were out of malice and without any legal backing. In Ext.P-21, it was further found W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..10.. that the Manager cannot escape from the purview of the Government Order dated 24.11.2011, as she was also one of the members of the selection committee that wrongly selected Smt.Lathakutty instead of the petitioner. It was found that the loss should be recovered not only from the Manager but also from the other members of the selection committee, and the Director of Higher Secondary Education was directed to fix the responsibility among the officials, which led to the approval of an ineligible person for promotion. The entire proceedings taken against the petitioner were set aside by Ext.P-21. 8. The Government, by order dated 21.11.2014 (Ext.P-23), rejected the claim for appointment of the petitioner as Principal on the ground that she does not possess essential teaching experience. This had to be challenged again by the petitioner by filing WP(C). No.3381/2015 and by the judgment dated 29.2.2016 (Ext.P-24), this Court found that the petitioner had the requisite experience and that the order declining appointment to the petitioner was set aside. It was found that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Principal with effect from 1.4.2010 in the vacancy that arose on that day. Smt.Lathakutty had W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..11.. preferred a writ appeal, and by judgment dated 25.5.2016, the writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. By Ext.P-26 dated 26.11.2016, the Government accordingly approved the appointment of the petitioner as Principal in preference to Smt.Lathakutty with effect from 1.4.2010, but directed that the Regional Deputy Director will approve her appointment with effect from 1.4.2010 notionally and release monetary benefits, if any, from the date of assumption of duty as Principal based on the appointment order of the Manager. By Ext.P-27, the Manager issued orders promoting the petitioner as Principal with effect from 1.4.2010 notionally without monetary benefits and the Regional Deputy Director, Kannur, was requested to approve her as the Principal with effect from 1.4.2010 notionally and to allow all consequential benefits. Thereafter, by the proceedings of the Manager dated 28.2.2017, the petitioner was directed to assume charge of the post of Principal and approval of her appointment was forwarded to the Regional Deputy Director. The petitioner had joined duty on 1.3.2017 though the order of appointment was with effect from 1.4.2010. 9. Thereafter, Ext. P-30 order was passed by the Regional Deputy W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 **==> picture [24 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** Director dated 15.3.2017, which is impugned in this writ petition, by which it was found that the petitioner's appointment as Principal is provisionally approved with effect from 1.4.2010 notionally, and the order has been issued on the strength of the declaration furnished by the Manager that he has acted as per the Rules. It is also mentioned in Ext.P-30 that the Manager was solely responsible for any irregularities, if any, noticed in future and the department will not be liable for any loss or damage caused to any incumbent consequent to such appointment. It is in this background that the petitioner has approached this Court. 10. Alleging that Ext.P-24 judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C). No.3381/2015 was not complied with, a Contempt of Court case had to be filed as Cont. Case (C) No. 80/2017, and it is only after the initiation of the same that the aforementioned orders were passed, as directed by the learned Single Judge on 29.2.2016. It was noticed (in Ext.P-35 judgment in Cont. Case (C) No. 80/2017) that the respondents had passed orders, and liberty was given to the petitioner to challenge the same. 11. The present prayer of the petitioner is for a declaration that she W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..13.. is fully eligible and entitled to get the full-service benefits, including salary and allowances, with periodical increments in the post of Principal, B.A.R. Higher Secondary School, Kasargode, with effect from 1.4.2010, flowing from Ext.P-24 judgment, by granting full restitution for the loss suffered by her. The petitioner also prays for all consequential, including the increments and also to refix her last pay to determine pension and other retirement benefits. It is also her prayer to refix the last pay in the post of Principal at Rs.77,400/- and to workout pension and other retiral benefits on that basis and to pay the arrears forthwith. 12. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government stating that the petitioner assumed charge as Principal on 1.3.2017, and she is eligible for the arrears of salary and allowance only with effect from the date of assumption of duty. The affidavit further states that the appointment of the petitioner as Principal with effect from 1.4.2010 is on probation. It is also stated that in the approval order issued by the 3[rd] respondent dated 13.3.2017, it was stated that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Principal with effect from 1.4.2010 is on probation for one year with a continuous period of two years. Ext.R-1(a), W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 **==> picture [24 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the copy of the appointment order, is also seen marked. The reason for not granting increments is stated to be the non-declaration of probation and that she has not passed the Account Test Lower, which is mandatory for declaration of probation under Rule 9 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules. In short, it is the non-declaration of probation that the Government takes as a reason for not granting the benefits due to the petitioner. 13. The 4[th] respondent – Manager has also filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has assumed duty only on 1.3.2017 and that she retired from service on 31.3.2017, and therefore, she is eligible for monetary benefits consequent on her promotion as Principal and that, her promotion is notional till assuming charge. The Manager also relies on the principle of “no work no pay” to state that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for. 14. Heard Senior Counsel Sri. O. V. Radhakrishnan, instructed by Sri. Vishnudas H., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Murali Pallath, learned counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent – Manager and Smt. K. G. Sarojini, learned Senior Government Pleader. W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..15.. 15. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and on perusing the records, it is clear that Ext.P-30 order and the stand of the Government are contrary to all the judgments referred to above, in particular the findings in Ext.P-24 that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed in the post of Principal with effect from 1.4.2010 when the vacancy arose in the school, and that she is entitled to all the service benefits based on that declaration. Resultantly, the stand of the Manager as well as the Government cannot be accepted at all. 16. The argument on behalf of the Government that the petitioner's probation was not declared and, therefore, she is not entitled to the grant of increment is _per se_ wrong. Going by Rule 31 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, an increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld. In the absence of any orders withholding the increment, the stand of the Government cannot be accepted at all. 17. The petitioner ought to have taken the test requisite for satisfactorily completing the probation within 2 years from the date of assumption of duty, as is clear from Rule 7 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules, which states that every person appointed to any W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..16.. of the categories shall from the date on which he joins duty be on probation and that if appointed by promotion (or by transfer for a total period of two years) on duty within a continuous period of two years. Rule 9 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules is also relevant, wherein it states that every person appointed to the category of Principal shall, during the period of probation, pass the Account Test for Executive Officers (Kerala) or Account Test (Lower) if he has not already passed the test. A reading of Rule 9 clearly shows that the requirement of passing the test is only during the period of probation which was within the continuous period of two years after joining duty. In the instant case, the petitioner was allowed to join only on 1.3.2017 and continued as such till her retirement on 31.3.2017. Under such circumstances, the reliance placed on Rules 7 & 9 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules to deny the legitimate entitlements of the petitioner is completely misplaced. That apart, it is to be seen that the satisfactory declaration of probation or becoming an approved probationer is only for the purpose of promotion or, possibly, not satisfactorily completing the probation may result in reversion. There cannot be any other consequences. The grant of W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..17.. increment is not dependent on the successful completion of probation. The grant of increment is governed by Rule 31 of Part I KSR. 18. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in _**Khosla and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. [(1990) 2 SCC 199]**_ wherein considering an almost similar claim, the Supreme Court held that, in the absence of any provision requiring completion of the probationary period for promotion within the service, it is clear that the same is not a pre-condition for promotion within the service. 19. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government, it was stated that the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the school with effect from 1.4.2010 is on probation. However, the same appears to be inaccurate as the appointment order produced by the Government as Ext.R-1(a) would clearly show that the petitioner was appointed “ _as a permanent Principal”_ under the Management with effect from 1.4.2010. The reference in the first counter affidavit filed is wrong. Probably, realising the same, I.A.No.1/2022 was filed on behalf of the Government seeking to withdraw the counter affidavit dated 18.7.2022, with liberty to substitute a fresh counter affidavit after correcting the mistakes. An W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..18.. objection was filed by the writ petitioner stating that the same cannot be allowed to be withdrawn, as it has already become part of the records. Certain precedents were also cited in support of the said contention. By orders of this Court dated 7.11.2022, recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the said petition is not being pressed, I.A.No.1/2022 was closed. The learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner would argue that, based on the said stand taken by the Government, it has to be taken that the averments in the writ petition stand uncontroverted. Given my findings above, I am not deciding on the effect of the above petition filed for withdrawing the earlier counter affidavit. 20. Declaration of probation in the instant case has nothing to do with the appointment or joining duty of the petitioner as Principal. In view of the judgments between parties, which became final, it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to all benefits from 1.4.2010 (the date on which the vacancy arose and the petitioner should have been appointed had the rules been followed). The petitioner will also be entitled to all consequential monetary benefits, including increments starting from W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..19.. 1.4.2010 and the pay revisions. The arrears, minus the amounts already paid, shall be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It will be open to the Government to take appropriate action against the Manager as well as those responsible for causing the loss, if any, to the government and to recover the same from them after quantification. 21. Before parting, as noted above, in several orders, the educational authorities have directed that the loss, if any, caused due to the acts of the Manager in depriving the legitimate appointment due to the writ petitioner, must be recovered from the Manager. As stated above, nothing on record suggests that any such action has been taken. The number of litigations the petitioner had to file or face because of the acts of the Manager speaks volumes of the attitude of the Manager which drove the petitioner to file all the above cases. The Manager has to consider himself distinctly lucky for not having been mulcted with costs in the previous litigations. Though costs must follow the cause/event, most of the time, it is not imposed. Since realistic costs are not being awarded, the attempt to curb frivolous and vexatious litigations has never W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..20.. been effective. When it is shown that one party has been wronged by the blatant statutory violations of the other and had to approach the Court to get their rights established, or when it is shown that the act of the party depriving the petitioner was not bonafide or with a view of helping someone ineligible, then costs will have to be ordered and in those circumstances, it cannot be said that the imposition of cost is an exercise of discretion on the part of the Court. Costs should ordinarily follow the event and must act as a deterrent to prevent vexatious litigations or unnecessary legal actions. The successful litigants should at least be partially indemnified against the cost of litigation. Those persons driving the wronged persons to file litigations must face the consequences. Ordering costs, in the above circumstances, must be treated as an integral part of the decision-making. In the facts of the case, I have no hesitation to hold that the acts of the Manager throughout have been to deprive the legitimate rights to which the writ petitioner was entitled. The Government had also found in so many orders that the loss must be recovered from the Manager. Accordingly, I impose a cost of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) on the 4[th] respondent-Manager, which W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..21.. shall be paid within a month from today. The educational authorities will ensure that the Manager complies with this direction of the Court and, on failure, take appropriate action against the Manager for disobeying the orders of the Court. It will be open to the Government to take appropriate action against the Manager as well as those responsible for causing the loss. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C. P., JUDGE MMG W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..22.. ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.41902/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTO COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.9.2007 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO 4480 OF 2007 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINT ORDER DATED 16.2.2018 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO A3/1896/08/KDIS DATED 25.9.2008 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.2.2011 IN WPC NO 9508 OF 2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 23.6.2011 IN WA NO 421 OF 2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO (RT) NO 5238/2011/G.EDN DATED 24.11.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONBDENT EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO A3/8275/2012 DATED 23.7.2012 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE NO 984 OF 2012 DATED 17.8.2012 IN WA NO 421/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..23.. |**EXHIBIT P10**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED**| |---|---| ||**22.3.2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED**| ||**22.9.2012 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO ACD**| ||**B3/9083/HSE/2009 DATED 8.10.2012 OF**| ||**THE ND RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**PHOTOCOPY**<br>**OF**<br>**THE**<br>**LETTER**<br>**NO**| ||**A3/14989/2012 DATED 22.12.2013 OF THE**| ||**3RD RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER NO**| ||**A3/616/2013 DATED 31.1.2013 OF THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE NO**| ||**A3/11125/2008 DATED 19.2.2013 OF THE**| ||**3RD RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO 3/2013 DATED**| ||**23.3.2013 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO ACD**| ||**B3/9083/HSE/2009 DATED 30.4.2013 OF**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P18**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED**| ||**30.7.2014 IN WPC NO 6376 OF 2014 OF**| ||**THIS HON'BLE COURT.**| |**EXHIBIT P19**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6376**| ||**OF 2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT**| W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..24.. |**EXHIBIT P20**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED**| |---|---|---| ||**6.11.2013 IN WPC NO 26937 OF THIS**|| ||**HON'BLE COURT.**|| |**EXHIBIT P21**|**PHOTOCOPY**<br>**OF**<br>**THE**|**GO(RT)**<br>**NO**| ||**3575/2014/G.EDN DATED 10.9.2014 OF THE**|| ||**1ST RESPONDENT**|| |**EXHIBIT P22**|**PHOTOCOPY**<br>**OF**<br>**THE**|**LETTER**<br>**NO**| ||**A4/3114/2014 DATED 20.12.2014 OF THE**|| ||**3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED**|**TO THE 5TH**| ||**RESPONDENT**|| |**EXHIBIT P23**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO **|**(RT) NO**| ||**5183/2014/G.EDN DATED 21.11.2014 OF**|| ||**THE 1ST RESPONDENT**|| |**EXHIBIT P24**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED**|| ||**29.2.2016 IN WPC NO 2381**|**OF 2016 OF**| ||**THIS HON'BLE COURT**|| |**EXHIBIT P25**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED**|| ||**25.5.2016 IN WA NO 933 OF**|**2016 OF THIS**| ||**HON'BLE COURT**|| |**EXHIBIT P26**|**PHOTOCOPY**<br>**OF**<br>**THE**|**GO(RT)**<br>**NO**| ||**4062/2016/G.EDN DATED 26.11.2016 OF**|| ||**THE 1ST RESPONDENT**|| |**EXHIBIT P27**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER **|**NO 01.2017**| ||**DATED 10.2.2017 OF THE 4TH**|**RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P28**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO**|**1/2017 DATED**| ||**28.2.2017 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT**|| |**EXHIBIT P29**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE JOINING**|**REPORT DATED**| ||**1.3.2017 OF THE PETITIONER**|| W. P. (C) No. 41902/2018 ..25.. **EXHIBIT P30 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO A9/6736/2016/KDIS DATED 15.3.2017 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P31** **PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO A92910/2017 DATED 15.6.2017 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P32** **PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO A9/2910/2017 L.DIS DATED 15.6.2017 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P33** **PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.9.2017 OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT GENERAL (A & E) KERALA.** **EXHIBIT P34** **PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT CORRECTLY PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE ENTITLEMENT TO RECEIVE HER LAST PAY AT RS 77.400/-** ## **EXHIBIT P35** **PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.9.2018 IN CON.CASE (C) NO 80 OF 2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** - **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R1(A)** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER VALSALA KUMARI DEVI** **EXHIBIT R1(B)** **A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE G.O(P) NO.07/2016/FIN DATED 20/01/2016**