Beena.A.V vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 10302 Ker

WP(C) NO. 30525 OF 2022              1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
    FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944
                    WP(C) NO. 30525 OF 2022


PETITIONER/S:

          BEENA.A.V.
          AGED 58 YEARS
          W/O.K.K.JAYAPRAKASH,
          KUZHIKATTU HOUSE, IRAVIMANGALAM P.O.,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT
          PIN - 680751

          BY ADVS.
          DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
          VINOD S. PILLAI
          AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
          MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.
          NAYANA VARGHESE
          K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL)


RESPONDENT/S:


    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
          GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
          PIN - 695001

    2     THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION
          HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS,
          SANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
          PIN - 695001

    3     THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR
          RDD OFFICE, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
          EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN - 682024
 WP(C) NO. 30525 OF 2022           2




          SMT. ANIMA, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 30525 OF 2022                    3




                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner, Smt. Beena A.V., joined service as Higher Secondary

School Teacher (HSST) at the AKM Higher Secondary School, Poochatty with

effect from 02.09.1991. While working as Principal in the same school, she

attained superannuation on 31.05.2022. The petitioner contends that after

retirement, she submitted an application before the 3rd respondent claiming

the benefit of surrender of Earned Leave/Terminal Earned Leave which was on

her credit. However, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P3 order granting sanction

only for 193 days of Earned Leave, and that too subject to verification. Being

aggrieved, the petitioner states that she has approached the 3rd respondent.

However, her request was not considered. The petitioner contends that the

only reason as to why the Earned Leave during vacation has not been granted

to the petitioner is that the Principals of Higher Secondary Schools were

declared as non-vacation staff by the Government only by Order dated

02.04.2007 and that the petitioner would be disentitled to Earned Leave during

vacations for the period prior to 02.04.2007.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the

order issued by the respondents cannot be sustained as it runs counter to the

provisions of Rules 78 and 81 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules. The learned

counsel would also submit that the issue is covered by Exts.P6 and P7

judgments rendered by this Court.

3. Having considered the submissions advanced, I find that the only

reason stated in Ext.P8 is that the petitioner is not entitled to Earned Leave

during a vacation for the period prior to issuance of the Government Order

dated 02.04.2007. This Court, in Ext.P6 judgment, while considering identical

issues, had occasion to hold as follows:

3. xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx

Rule 78 and Rule 81 of Part I KSR read as follows:

"Rule 78:- The earned leave admissible to an officer in

permanent employ is one -eleventh of the period spent on duty,

provided that he will cease to earn such leave when the earned

leave due amounts 300 days.

Rule 81: The earned leave admissible to an officer in

permanent employ serving in a vacation department, in respect

of any year in which he is prevented from availing himself of the

full vacation, is such proportion of 30 days as the number of

days of vacation not taken bears to the full vacation.

If in any year the officer does not avail himself of the

vacation, earned leave will be admissible to him in respect of

that year in accordance with the provisions of Rules 78 and 79

above."

Ext.P2 reads thus:

"In supersession of all the orders in the matter of

placement of Principals in Higher Secondary Schools in the

State, Government order as follows:

i) Eligible Higher Secondary School Teachers/Headmaster

of High Schools with qualifications and experience in teaching as

prescribed in the Special Rules will be the Principal of Higher

Secondary Schools in the ratio of 2 : 1.

ii) The Principal will be the administrative and academic

Head of the Higher Secondary Schools.

iii) Headmaster will continue as the Headmaster of the

High School. He will render all assistance and co-operation to the

Principal for the smooth conduct of the School administration.

iv) The Higher Secondary School Teachers concerned on

placement as Principal will continue to perform his duty as

Higher Secondary School Teacher in the concerned subject but

with a reduction of four periods per week. Excess periods

consequent to such reduction in the periods of teaching will be

distributed among the existing teachers in the Higher Secondary

Section.

2. Orders regarding delegation of powers to Principal and

Headmaster will be issued separately."

Ext.P2 would abundantly show that the Principals of

Higher Secondary Schools are expected to work during vacations

also for discharging their duties efficiently. In the above

circumstances, I am satisfied that the Higher Secondary School

Principals comes squarely within the purview of Rule 81 read

with Rule 78 of Part I KSR. The fact that the Principals were

declared as non-vacation staff only by Ext.P6 Government order

dated 02.04.2007, does not make them ineligible for earned

leave for the period during prior vacations in which they actually

worked. I am of opinion that Ext.P6 can at best be only

declaratory in nature. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to

the benefit of earned leave for all vacations in which he acted as

Principal of the School.

4. The same view is taken by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment as well. The

issue is covered in favor of the petitioner.

5. In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Exst.P4 and

P8 will stand quashed. It is held that the petitioner would be entitled to Earned

Leave for the period of vacation also and that she would be entitled to

surrender such Earned Leave to the maximum extent permissible on

retirement. Orders, as directed above, shall be passed by the 3rd respondent

expeditiously, in any event, within a period of six weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE NS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30525/2022

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AED.C4/199/HSE/02(2) PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.03.2006 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5/6469/06 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.03.2008 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A4/6378/RDD/HSE/EKM/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.10.2021 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.03.2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.02.2022 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 23932 OF 2010 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 16.02.2011 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 352 OF 2013 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 23.01.2013 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ACD.B2/231904/2022/HSE PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.06.2022

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL