Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Shylaja K. Unnithan on 23 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WA NO. 1409 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27593/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION(T)DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
CORPORATION BUILDING, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
3 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
CORPORATION BUILDING, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
4 THE PRINCIPAL,
V.V.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THAMARAKKULAM,
CHARUMMOODU.P.O,MAVELIKKARA TALUK-690504.
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
1 SHYLAJA K. UNNITHAN, AGED 48 YEARS,
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER,
V.V.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
THAMARAKKULAM, CHARUMOODU.P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-690505.
BY ADVS.
K.SASIKUMAR
P.S.RAGHUKUMAR
S.ARAVIND
K.JANARDHANA SHENOY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.NO.1409/2021 :: 2 ::
JUDGMENT
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J
The State is in appeal before us, aggrieved by the judgment
dated 19.11.2020 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C)No. 27593 of
2019. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are
as follows:-
The writ petitioner, a Higher Secondary School Teacher in the
G V Higher Secondary School, Thamarakkulam, had met with an
accident on 17.08.2012 at 9 a.m., while she was riding her scooter on
her way to school from her residence. The scooter which she was
riding met with an accident and the petitioner sustained serious
injuries. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the accident, she was
hospitalised and was under treatment during the period from
17.08.2012 to 16.12.2012. It would appear that the writ petitioner
claimed the benefit of special disability leave in terms of Rules 97
and 98 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules [KSR], but her claim was
rejected by the Regional Deputy Director, Higher Secondary
Education by Ext.P8 order. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an
appeal before the Government, which too was rejected by Ext.P11 on
W.A.NO.1409/2021 :: 3 ::
the same ground. The petitioner, then impugned the said
Government Order before this Court, when by Ext.P12 judgment this
Court quashed the earlier orders and directed the competent
authority to take up the application of the petitioner again and pass a
fresh order thereon. It is pursuant to the said direction of the learned
Single Judge that Ext.P13 order came to be passed, once again
rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the accident
that occurred in the course of travel of the petitioner from her
residence to the school could not be considered as one that occurred
during the performance of her official duties. W.P.(C).No.27593 of
2019 was preferred by the writ petitioner impugning Ext.P13 order.
2. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter
took note of the provisions of Rules 97 and 98 of Part I KSR as also
the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this
Court that was cited by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner
and found that the injury suffered by the petitioner while she was
admittedly, on her way to work had to be seen as an injury suffered
consequent on her employment. The learned Judge, therefore,
directed the respondents to sanction the special disability leave
applied for by the petitioner for the period from 17.08.2012 to
16.12.2012, as claimed by her.
3. Before us, it is the submission of the learned
W.A.NO.1409/2021 :: 4 ::
Government Pleader, referring to Rules 97 and 98 of Part I KSR that
the injury suffered by the petitioner could not be seen as either
caused in, or in consequence of the due performance of her official
duties or in consequence of her official position. It is essentially
stated that the travel from her residence to the school could not be
seen as a travel in connection with her employment.
4. We find ourselves unable to accept the said contention
of the learned Government Pleader. A mere perusal of the provisions
of Part I KSR which deal with various kinds of leave would reveal the
underlying scheme therein which is that the sanction of various kinds
of leave are contemplated only once it is established that the
employee - employer relationship continues to exist without
interruption. The difference in the kinds of leave sanctioned are only
in respect of the periods for which an employee can remain absent
from work and the monetary benefits, if any, that will be paid to the
employee during the said period. Thus, when the provisions of Rules
97 and 98 of Part I KSR that prescribe the conditions for the grant of
leave are interpreted, the interpretation to be placed must be one
that recognizes the above scheme and its intent, and furthers such
intent. In our view, on such interpretation, the phrase "caused in, or
in consequence of due performance of his official duties or in
consequence of his official position", which appear in both the Rules
aforementioned, cannot be construed in a narrow and pedantic
W.A.NO.1409/2021 :: 5 ::
fashion so as to exclude a person who was admittedly an employee,
who was travelling from her residence to the place of work at the
time when the accident took place.
We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the liberal view
taken by the learned Single Judge and as a consequence, we dismiss
this Writ Appeal.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P
JUDGE
dlk/23/11/
