Judgment : 1. The petitioner, a former Arabic Teacher of A.M.U.P. School, Aviyoor, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P11 Government order dated 12.1.2010 and seeking the following reliefs: i. to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P11 in so far as it has not treated the period of out of service of the petitioner, which was illegally imposed on her by the Manager, as duty and direction not issued to disburse her all benefits including salary and pension on that basis, for the said period mentioned in Exhibit.P11. ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction commanding the respondents to see that the salary and other benefits due to the petitioner for the period from 29-9-78 to 5-6-79, from 22-4-84 to 19-8-84 and from 22-4-94 to 4-6-2000 are disbursed to the petitioner within a specified time. iii. to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get all service benefits including salary and other allowances and pension for the periods mentioned in Relief No.ii, on the facts of this case. and, iv. to grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper to be granted on the facts of the case; 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Arabic Teacher in A.M.U.P. School, Aviyoor in leave vacancies during the period from 4.7.1978 to 28.9.1978, 6.6.1979 to 21.2.1984 and from 20.8.1984 to 21.4.1994. The said appointments were approved by the Assistant Educational Officer, Chavakkad. By virtue of her approved service during the period from 4.7.1978 to 28.9.1978, the petitioner became entitled to a preferential claim for future appointment in the school. 3. A vacancy of Arabic Teacher arose in the Lower Primary section of A.M.U.P. School, Aviyoor on 1.7.1995 consequent on the retirement of the incumbent on 30.6.1995. Instead of appointing the petitioner, who had a preferential claim under rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education rules, the then Manager appointed a fresh hand from the open market. The Assistant Educational Officer declined to approve the said appointment. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the District Educational Officer, Thrissur and in revision by the Director of Public Instruction who, by order passed on 1.2.1997, directed the Manager to appoint the petitioner as Arabic Teacher in the Lower Primary section of A.M.U.P. School, Aviyoor. The Assistant Educational Officer declined to approve the said appointment. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the District Educational Officer, Thrissur and in revision by the Director of Public Instruction who, by order passed on 1.2.1997, directed the Manager to appoint the petitioner as Arabic Teacher in the Lower Primary section of A.M.U.P. School, Aviyoor. The Manager challenged it in this Court by filing O.P.No.3039 of 1997. The principal contention raised by the Manager in the said writ petition was that before the order dated 1.2.1997 was issued, he was not put on notice or heard. Since the Manager had not been heard before the order dated 1.2.1997 was issued, it was set aside by this Court and the Director of Public Instruction was directed to pass fresh orders in the matter. The Director of Public Instruction thereafter heard the parties and passed Ext.P1 order dated 31.12.1997 directing the Manager to implement the earlier order dated 1.2.1997 at once failing which the Manager was cautioned that he will be disqualified to hold the post of Manager without further notice. Sri. C.K.Raghavan, the Manager, thereupon filed O.P.No.2001 of 1998 in this Court. By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 28.9.1998, the said writ petition was dismissed upholding Ext.P1. This Court also directed the Manager to implement Ext.P1 order, a copy of which was produced and marked as Ext.P17 in O.P.No.2001 of 1998, within one month from 28.9.1998. This Court also declared that the petitioner herein, who was joined as the fourth respondent in the said writ petition, will be entitled to get all consequential benefits. 4. The then Manager did not appoint the petitioner as Arabic Teacher in the vacancy which arose on 1.7.1995. Instead, canvassing the correctness of Ext.P2 judgment, he filed W.A.No.2274 of 1998. The said writ appeal was dismissed by judgment delivered on 26.10.1999. The Manager thereupon moved the Apex Court by filing SLP(Civil) No.4211 of 2000. Though the then Manager had prayed for an interim order of stay, an interim order of stay was declined by the Apex Court and consequently, the then Manager issued Ext.P3 appointment order dated 5.6.2000 appointing the petitioner as Arabic Teacher in the vacancy of Sri. T. Abu, who retired from service on 1.7.1995. The said appointment was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer, Chavakkad as per order dated 28.7.2000 with effect from 5.6.2000. T. Abu, who retired from service on 1.7.1995. The said appointment was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer, Chavakkad as per order dated 28.7.2000 with effect from 5.6.2000. While the petitioner was thus working as Arabic Teacher in A.M.U.P. School, Aviyoor, he retired from service on 30.4.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Special Leave Petition filed by the Manager from Ext.P2 judgment of the learned single Judge and from the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.2274 of 1998 was thereafter dismissed by order passed on 9.12.2004. 5. After retirement from service, the petitioner moved the Government by submitting Ext.P4 representation dated 24.5.2003, wherein she sought service benefits during the period when she was thrown out of service till the date of her retirement, viz., 30.4.2003. She thereafter filed Ext.P6 representation dated 24.5.2005, wherein she stated that she has no income except the meagre monthly pension of Rs.1,200/-. When no action was taken in the matter, she filed Ext.P7 representation dated 10.7.2006 before the then Minister for Education. She thereafter submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 30.7.2006 before the Principal Secretary to General Education Department. When no reply was received, she filed WP(C).No.12336 of 2007 in this Court wherein she sought an order directing the State of Kerala to pass orders on the representations referred to above, which were produced and marked as Exts.P4, P7 and P8 therein. By Ext.P9 judgment delivered on 6.6.2008, a learned single Judge of this Court directed the Government to dispose of the representations within a period of six months, after notice to and affording all the parties an opportunity of being heard. The Government heard the parties and passed Ext.P11 order dated 12.1.2010 whereby it regularized the period during which the petitioner was out of service as 'Non-duty' without forfeiture of past service and directed the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur, to implement it. The Government had in the meanwhile sent Ext.P10 letter dated 24.4.2009 to the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur directing him to take action against the Manager under rule 7(4)(c) of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules and to report compliance. By Ext.P11 the Government also directed the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur to implement the directions contained in Ext.P10 letter and to report compliance. By Ext.P11 the Government also directed the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur to implement the directions contained in Ext.P10 letter and to report compliance. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P11 to the extent it denies salary and allowances to her during the period when she was out of service. She also seeks an order directing the respondents to pay salary and allowances to her for the period from 29.9.1978 to 5.6.1979, 22.4.1984 to 19.8.1984 and from 22.4.1994 to 4.6.2000. 6. The principal contention raised in the writ petition is that in view of the declaration in Ext.P2 judgment and the observations made by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment, the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits during the period when she was kept out of service by the illegal act of the Manager. A counter affidavit dated 18.2.2013 has been filed by the second respondent, the Assistant Educational Officer, Chavakkad. The stand taken by the second respondent is that as the petitioner was denied appointment by the third respondent Manager, he is responsible for the loss that has occasioned to her. It is also stated that steps are being taken by him against the Manager for disobedience of the lawful directions issued by competent authorities. However, it is conceded in paragraph 2 that the petitioner was the rightful claimant for appointment against the vacancy which arose on 1.7.1995, but instead of appointing her, the Manager appointed a fresh hand. The third respondent Manager has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 27.12.2012, inter alia, stating that the claim made by the petitioner relates to a period when the Manager was someone else and therefore, he is not liable. He also raised the contention that the claim made by the petitioner is barred by limitation. He has further stated that if the petitioner had any claim against the then Manager (late C.K.Raghavan), she ought to have proceeded against him then and there, instead of proceeding against him. 7. I heard Sri. Abraham Vakkanal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. A.Lowsy, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Sri. V.A. Muhammed, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. 7. I heard Sri. Abraham Vakkanal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. A.Lowsy, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Sri. V.A. Muhammed, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. A reading of Ext.P1 order passed by the Director of Public Instruction and Ext.P11 order passed by the Government indicate that the petitioner was the rightful claimant for the post of Arabic Teacher which arose on 1.7.1995 in A.M.U.P. School, Aviyoor and that ignoring her rightful claim the Manager appointed another teacher from the open market. It is also not in dispute that the said appointment was not approved meaning thereby, that salary and allowances were not paid to the teacher who was appointed in the vacancy that arose on 1.7.1995. That was the reason why, while repelling the challenge made by the then Manager Sri. C.K.Raghavan to Ext.P1 order passed by the Deputy Director of Education this Court held in Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 28.9.1998 that the petitioner herein (the fourth respondent in O.P.No.2001 of 1998) will also be entitled to get all consequential benefits. Such a declaration was made after directing the Manager, the petitioner in O.P.No.2001 of 1998, to implement Ext.P1 order, which was produced and marked as Ext.P17 in that writ petition. The said judgment has attained finality. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to salary and allowances applicable to the post of Arabic Teacher with effect from 1.7.1995. The mere fact that on account of the delaying tactics adopted by the then Manager, the appointment was really made only on 5.6.2000 cannot, in the light of the declaration made by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment, be held out against the petitioner. In my considered opinion, the Government misdirected itself when it failed to take note of the declaration made by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment which has attained finality and held that the petitioner will not be entitled to any monetary benefit during the period from 1.7.1995 to 5.6.2000. In my considered opinion, the Government misdirected itself when it failed to take note of the declaration made by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment which has attained finality and held that the petitioner will not be entitled to any monetary benefit during the period from 1.7.1995 to 5.6.2000. The petitioner cannot, in my opinion, be visited with the consequences of the deliberate omission of the then Manager to recognize and give effect to her claim for re-appointment which was recognized by the Director of Public Instruction in Ext.P1 order and recognized and upheld by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment, which, as stated earlier, has attained finality and is binding on all the parties to it. I accordingly hold that the petitioner is entitled to salary and allowances during the period from 1.7.1995 to 4.6.2000. 8. Then the only other question is whether the third respondent Manager should be held liable to pay salary and allowances. The present Manager of the school is Sri. C. Viswanathan. He has in his counter affidavit averred in positive terms that he was not the Manager when Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 orders were issued. The petitioner or the official respondents have not denied the said averment. Ext.P3 is the order by which the petitioner was re-appointed on 5.6.2000. That appointment was approved and she was paid salary and allowances from 5.6.2000. Though the learned Government Pleader submitted that in the event of the present Manager being held not liable, the Government should be permitted to recover the salary and allowances and other amounts paid to the petitioner from the legal heirs of the deceased Manager, in view of the fact that the legal heirs of the deceased Manager are not on the party array, I am of the opinion that it will not be just, fair and proper for this Court to grant such permission. Since the present Manager of the school is not the Manager who delayed the petitioner's appointment, I am of the opinion that it would not be just and proper to allow the State to recover the salary and allowances which it is bound to pay to the petitioner, from him. 9. Since the present Manager of the school is not the Manager who delayed the petitioner's appointment, I am of the opinion that it would not be just and proper to allow the State to recover the salary and allowances which it is bound to pay to the petitioner, from him. 9. I accordingly allow the writ petition, set aside Ext.P11 Government order dated 12.1.2010 to the extent it denies salary and allowances to the petitioner with effect from 1.7.1995 and declare that the petitioner is entitled to the salary and allowances applicable to the post of Arabic Teacher with effect from 1.7.1995. I also direct the second respondent and the Head Master of the school to take steps to fix, draw and disburse arrears of salary and allowances to the petitioner during the period from 1.7.1995 to 5.6.2000 having regard to the periodical pay revisions if any. Needless to say, the pay of the petitioner as on 5.6.2000 will also have to be re-fixed on that basis. Arrears of salary and allowances for the period from 1.7.1995 to 30.4.2003 shall be drawn and disbursed within a period of three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of the judgment before the Assistant Educational Officer. The terminal benefits if any paid to the petitioner shall be re-fixed accordingly and arrears disbursed within another two months thereafter.