The Secretary To Government vs Amod Mathew
2022 Latest Caselaw 7719 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
                                     &
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
         TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944
                         WA NO. 656 OF 2022
     AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD. 2.12.2021 IN WP(C) 21689/2021 OF
                        HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WPC:

     1      THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
            GENERAL EDUCATION (T) DEPARTMENT
            GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
     2      THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION(HIGHER SECONDARY)
            HOUSING BOARD BUILDING
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
     3      THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
            EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575
            BY ADV.SMT.V.VINITA, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN WPC:

     1      AMOD MATHEW
            S/O. MATHEW,
            TEACHER (HSS TEACHER)
            ST.PAUL'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
            VALIYAKUMARAMANGALAM
            MOONILAVU P.O
            KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686586
     2      THE MANAGER
            CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY,
            DIOCESE OF PALAI
            PALA P.O
            KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686575
            BY ADVS.SHAJI THOMAS
            JEN JAISON


     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 28.06.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                           2
Writ Appeal No.656 of 2022


                P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
                  --------------------------------------------------
                          Writ Appeal No.656 of 2022
                      -------------------------------------------
                    Dated this the 28th day of June, 2022


                                JUDGMENT

C.S.Sudha, J.

In this intra-court appeal, the appellants who are respondents 1 to

3 in the writ petition challenge the grant of the benefit of the third proviso to

Rule 33(b)(2) of Part I of Kerala Service Rules (KSR) by the impugned

judgment in W.P.(C)No.21689/2021. The respondents herein are the petitioner

and the fourth respondent respectively in the writ petition. The parties and the

documents in this writ appeal will be referred to as described in the writ

petition.

2. Heard Smt.V.Vinita, the learned Senior Government Pleader for

the appellants and Sri.Shaji Thomas, the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The third proviso to Rule 33(b)(2) says that when leave without

allowances are taken by the teachers for completion of training courses such as

B.Ed., Hindi Teachers' Training, Language Teachers' Training and Teachers'

Writ Appeal No.656 of 2022

Training Certificate Course, it shall count for increment. This proviso was

deleted w.e.f. 11/05/2005 by G.O.(P)No.217/2005/Fin. published as

S.R.O.No.526/2005. In Deepika vs. State of Kerala, 2007(1) KLT 71, it has

been held that the deletion of the 3rd Proviso will have only prospective effect.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner in the writ petition had applied for LWA

which was sanctioned before the Proviso was deleted. The representation

given by the petitioner along with two others to the Government, claiming the

benefit was rejected by Ext.P9 order. This was challenged by one of the

parties in Ext.P9 order. This Court by Ext.P10 judgment, found the rejection to

be unsustainable and directed the respondent State to treat the period of leave

availed for acquiring B.Ed. qualification as service for all purposes including

grant of increments and consequential benefits were directed to be calculated

and disbursed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy

of Ext.P10 judgment.

5. The fact that the petitioner herein is similarly placed as the

petitioner in Ext.P10 judgment, is not disputed. For what earthly

purpose/reason this appeal has been filed by the respondent State is not clear.

Apparently, for some extraneous consideration. This is all the more so,

Writ Appeal No.656 of 2022

because Ext.P10 judgment has not been challenged by the respondents till

date. However, they seem to be quite particular that the petitioner should not

be granted the benefit which have been granted to candidates similarly placed.

One another ground pointed out is the delay in the petitioner moving this

Court. However, that is no ground to reject the claim of the petitioner

especially in the light of the decisions in Deepika (Supra), Exts.P6 and P10

judgments.

We find no merit in the appeal and hence the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S.SUDHA JUDGE ami/