ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
This appeal is filed by the respondents in W.P.(C)No.164 of 2011, who are aggrieved by the judgment dated 28th January, 2014 rendered by the learned Single Judge, allowing the petition.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the 1st respondent herein was appointed in the school, of which the 2nd respondent is the Manager, as LPSA for 7 spells of time from 1995. Subsequently, recognizing her claim as a Rule 51 A claimant, she was appointed on a regular basis with effect from 2/6/2003. While continuing as such, there was division fall in the academic year 2007-08 and as a result she was thrown out from service.
3. Later a Leave without Allowance vacancy arose from 01/04/2010 to 31/5/2014 and again recognizing her as a Rule 51 A claimant, the 2nd respondent appointed her. Approval was rejected by the appellant, on the basis that the school being an uneconomical school only protected teacher could have been appointed. It was in this background that the Writ Petition was filed.
4. The learned Single Judge upheld her entitlement for approval of her appointment. It is this judgment which is called in question before us.
5. We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and also 2.
6. In our view, the entitlement of the appellant as recognized by the learned Single Judge has to be upheld particularly in the light of the judgment of W.A.No.30 of 2014, where a similar claim has already been upheld.
7. However, the learned Government Pleader points out that from the period 13/6/2012 the 1st respondent was working as Cluster Co-ordinator of Sarva Siksha Abhiyan and was earning salary for that period. This fact is not disputed by the respondents also and according to her, she was paid basic pay for the period from 13/6/2012. Now that both sides accepted that the 1st respondent was working as Cluster Co-ordinator from 13/6/2012 and was also earning basic pay of LPSA, we clarify that for the period of her employment as Cluster Co- ordinator, the monetary entitlement of the appellants arising out of the approval of the appointment of the 1st respondent shall be confined to difference in pay.
Clarifying as above, the appeal is disposed of.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj True copy P.A to Judge