Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Khadeeja V on 28 October, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
WA NO. 1552 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:80592
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WA NO. 1552 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.11.2024 IN WP(C) NO.2851 OF
2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 IN W.P.(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
KOZHIKODE-673001.
4 ASSITANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673572.
5 DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
6 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS
KOZHIKODE-673001.
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WPC:
KHADEEJA V
AGED 49 YEARS
HEADMISTRESS, A.M.L.P.SCHOOL, PAIPULASSERY,
MUTTANCHERRY.P.O, NARIKKUNI, KOZHIKODE-673585.
WA NO. 1552 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:80592
BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2025,
THE COURT ON 28.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1552 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:80592
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
Respondents 1 to 6 in W.P.(C)No.2851 of 2018 filed this writ
appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958,
challenging the judgment dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge in that writ petition. The respondent-writ petitioner
approached this Court with W.P.(C)No.2851 of 2018 filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following
reliefs;
"(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P6 and quash the same
by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, or
order or direction;
(ii) To declare that the action of the respondents 2 to 6 in taking
steps to recover the salary received by the petitioner from October
2010 to November 2012 is arbitrary and illegal;
(iii) To set aside the action initiated against the petitioner on the
basis of Executive orders when there is no bar in claiming
honorarium while acting as President of the Panchayath as per
Rule 3(A) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Honorarium and
Allowance to Representative of Peoples) Rules 1995;
(iv) To declare that petitioner is entitled to receive Honorarium as
Panchayath President as per Rule 3(A) of the Kerala Panchayath
Raj (Honorarium and Allowance to Representative of Peoples)
Rules 1995 even while working as Headmistress, in the light of
Ext.P8 and Ext.P7 Government order vide G.O. (Ms)
No.203/2002/LSGD dated 25.11.2002 and G.O.(P)
No.28/98/G.Edn dated 16.1.1998."
WA NO. 1552 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:80592
2. The respondent, while working as the Headmistress of
A.M.L.P. School, Paipulassery, Kozhikode, contested the election
for Local Bodies during October 2010 and got elected as a Member
of Ward No.16 of Madavoor Grama Panchayat. Later, she was
selected as the President of the Panchayat with effect from
08.11.2010. She was discharging her duties as the President of
the Grama Panchayat and was also continuing as Headmistress of
the School, by availing eligible commuted leave, casual leave etc.
She received salary from the School and also honorarium for
functioning as the President of the Grama Panchayat as provided
in Rule 3A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Honorarium and
Allowances to Representatives of People) Rule, 1995.
2.1. According to the respondent, based on an anonymous
complaint filed by one of her adversaries, some enquiries were
conducted behind her back, of which she was unaware. The
respondent states that the appellants, on the basis of mere
presumption at the dictates of the opposite party in the Panchayat,
decided to recover salary received by her as Headmistress during
the period she took up the post of President of Grama Panchayat.
On being informed that there are Government Orders stipulating
that an employee can take up the post of President of the Local
WA NO. 1552 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:80592
Body only after availing leave, the respondent submitted Ext.P2
resignation from the post of President of the Panchayat with effect
from 21.11.2012. Thereafter, apprehending that some coercive
action will be taken, she submitted Ext.P3 explanation dated
03.10.2014 to the District Finance Inspection Officer, stating that
she had not abdicated her duty as Headmistress and prayed to
drop further steps. Likewise, the respondent submitted Ext.P4
representation to the 2nd appellant to drop all further proceedings
against her. By Ext.P5 communication dated 30.03.2015, the 5 th
appellant informed the 6th appellant not to proceed against the
respondent based on the complaint that she claimed dual salary
from the Education Department and Local Self Government as
honorarium. While so, she was served with Ext.P6 communication
dated 12.01.2018 from the 4th appellant by referring to an order
issued by the 3rd appellant dated 08.01.2018 stating to recover
the salary claimed by her from October 2010 to November 2012.
Therefore, the respondent approached this Court with the present
writ petition.
3. In the writ petition, the 3rd appellant filed a counter
affidavit dated 27.02.2024 opposing the reliefs sought by the
WA NO. 1552 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:80592
respondent-writ petitioner. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of that counter
affidavit read thus;
"2 It is submitted that in the local body election that was
conducted during October 2010, the petitioner was elected to the
Grama Panchayath of Madavoor, representing Ward No.16, and
subsequently took charge as Madavoor Grama Panchayath
President on 08.11.2010. Aided school teachers are allowed to
contest elections and hold the post of President or chairman of
the Panchayath/Muncipality. The petitioner took charge of the
Madavoor Grama Panchayath President on 08.11.2010 and
continued in the post till 23.11.2012. During the period of charge,
she had only availed the following days of commuted leave:-
From To No. of days
05.01.2011 24.02.2011 20 days
08.02.2012 17.02.2012 10 days
04.09.2012 09.09.2012 6 days
But as per G.O.(MS) No.81/08/LSGD dated 15.03.2008, aided
school teachers elected as Panchayath President should avail
Leave Without Allowance for the period required from the parent
department before assuming the new charge. But the petitioner
had not availed any leave other than 36 days Commuted Leave
as furnished above. Hence, the objection raised by the Deputy
Director of Education, Kozhikode (R3) and the District Finance
Inspection Squad is valid, genuine and as per the existing rules.
The petitioner had claimed both salary as the Aided School
Teacher and honorarium from the Grama Panchayath, which is
against the existing rules. The petitioner's ignorance of rules and
directions cannot be treated as an excuse and the department
could not be held responsible for the violation of the rules.
WA NO. 1552 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:80592
3. It is submitted that the petitioner was working as
Headmistress of A.M.L.P. School, Paymbalassery, and as the
President of Madavoor Grama Panchayath simultaneously. Based
on the complaint received against the petitioner, the Deputy
Director of Education, Kozhikode (R3), had instructed the
Assistant Educational Officer, Koduvally (R4), to conduct an
enquiry at the school on 19.08.2014 and it was established that
the petitioner was found to be drawing dual salary from both the
posts. It is pure fabrication that the petitioner was unaware of
the enquiry conducted over the complaint. The findings of the
Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode, and the Assistant
Educational officer, Koduvally, in this regard adhere strictly to the
regulations in G.O. (MS) No.81/08.LSGD dated 15.03.2018.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner had served as the President
of Madavoor Grama Panchayath for the period from 08.11.2010
to 23.11.2012, i.e., for 2 years and 16 days. During the period
she had only availed 36 days commuted leave as furnished in the
above statement. The rest of the period for which she held the
dual posts, she had been drawing dual salary and this fact is
established. Hence, the contentions raised by the petitioner is
unsustainable. It is submitted that educational officers of the
department are competent to conduct inspections at school
without issuing any prior notice. The District Finance Inspection
Squad is also equipped with delegatory powers enabling them to
conduct verification of registers and cash book of the school.
5 It is submitted that the petitioner had availed only 36 days of
commuted leave during the entire stretch of 2 years of her charge
as Panchayath President. The presence of Headmistress is
important and inevitable to a school and hence the manipulation
carried out by the petitioner has to be viewed seriously. The
refund of the excess salary drawn by the petitioner was
temporarily stayed as per Exhibit P5 letter No.J-3/43271/2014
dated 30.03.2018. The final order in this regard is not seen
WA NO. 1552 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:80592
produced and hence decision cannot be taken relying on a letter
directing temporary stoppage of the dues towards the
Government. The Assistant Education Officer, Koduvally, is
entitled to execute the directions from the higher authorities and
had just followed the instructions to initiate refund the excess
drawal as directed by the Director of Public Instruction,
Thiruvananthapuram and Deputy Director of Education,
Kozhikode. The action of the Assistant Educational Officer in this
regard is genuine, legal and sustainable.
6 The post of Headmistress of an aided school is a full time
functioning post demanding constant monitoring over all
academic and extracurricular activities and co-ordination of the
teachers towards academic excellence. Hence the petitioner's
contention justifying her shortcomings may be rejected ad
limina. The petitioner is bound to follow all the rules in this
regard. The petitioner's claims are vague, flimsy and baseless.
The fact that she had claimed dual salary during the period is
established and she is bound to refund the excessive loss caused
to the state exchequer."
4. Similarly, the 6th appellant filed a counter affidavit
dated 08.06.2018 in the writ petition, producing therewith Exts.
R6(a) to R6(c) documents. Paragraphs 6 to 9 of that counter
affidavit read thus;
"6. It is submitted that, as per Chapter XIV Section 153(1) of the
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the President shall be a full-time
functionary of the Panchayat and as per Section 156, the
President shall be directly responsible for the due fulfillment of the
duties imposed upon the Panchayat by the Act. As the petitioner
claimed the salary from the parent department, she has violated
the stipulations contained in G.O.(Ms)No.81/08/LSGD. The
petitioner stated in the Exhibit P4 which she submitted before the
WA NO. 1552 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:80592
2nd respondent that she was not aware of the
G.O.(Ms)No.81/2008/LSGD. But the petitioner who was unaware
of the Government order cannot escape liability for violating the
Government order merely because she was not aware of its
content.
7. It is submitted that the 5th respondent has informed this
respondent that action has directed by the Government vide letter
No.48771/EM2/2013/LSGD dated 07.11.2014 is adjourned by the
Government vide Exhibit P5. It is crystal clear from Exhibit P5 that
the proceedings were not withdrawn, but was only stopped
temporarily. Hence, the violation of conditions laiddown in the
Government order cannot be nullified and the petitioner cannot
be exempted from her liabilities for the reason that she has
tendered her resignation.
8. The contentions of the petitioner that Exhibit P6 is the only
communication received by her is false since she was intimated
by Annexure R3(b) as to the recovery of the amount received as
salary. She was not responded to the above communication. The
contention that she is not having any prior notice of the issue is
not sustainable.
9. It is submitted that the decision to recover the amount from
the petitioner by the Government is on the basis of
G.O.(Ms)No.81/08/ LSGD The Government Order was made
applicable to the President of Grama Panchayath because
President is the fulltime functionary of Panchayat and the
President is vested with executive power for the purpose of
implementing and performing provisions in Kerala Panchayat Raj
Act as laid down in Section 156. Hence, the action taken by the
Government to recover the amount from the petitioner is just and
proper."
5. In the writ petition, the respondent-writ petitioner
produced Exts.P11 to P13 documents along with I.A.No.1 of 2024.
WA NO. 1552 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:80592
6. After considering the rival contentions of both sides,
the learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated
14.11.2024, allowed the writ petition by setting aside Exts.P5 and
P6 orders. Consequential directions were also issued by the
learned Single Judge in that judgment.
7. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellants with a
delay of 162 days. By the order dated 26.09.2025 in
C.M.Application No.1 of 2025, we condoned the delay.
8. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the
appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.
9. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit
that the Government order dated 15.03.2008 clarifies that the
Presidents of the Panchayat and the Chairpersons of the
Municipalities are entitled to get only leave salary from their
employment in the parent department, apart from the
honorarium. The said Government order is not challenged in the
writ petition. Therefore, the respondent cannot claim both benefits
at a time by relying on the Government orders.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent would submit that a representative of people in a
Panchayat is eligible for honorarium even if he has income from
WA NO. 1552 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:80592
other sources in view of Section 3A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
(Honorarium and Allowances to Representatives of People) Rules,
1995. By Ext.P8 order, the Government has clarified that there is
no restriction on doing another employment for the Panchayat
Presidents and Chairpersons of the Municipalities during their
tenure, and there need not be any restriction on allowing
permitted leave to them from the parent department. It was
clarified in that order that the leave to be sanctioned to those
persons need not be leave without allowance. In such
circumstances, there is no necessity to interfere with the
impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
11. Admittedly, during the period from 08.11.2010, till
21.11.2012, the respondent was performing two official duties,
such as Headmistress of the School as well as President of Grama
Panchayat. She received the salary for the post of Headmistress
as well as the honorarium for performing duties as the Panchayat
President. She is relying on Ext.P8 order of the Government, which
says that there is no restriction on the leave to be allotted to such
persons, who were selected as Panchayat Presidents and
Chairpersons of the Municipalities, and also from their engaging in
other employment for their livelihood.
WA NO. 1552 OF 2025 12 2025:KER:80592
12. The respondent has no specific case that during the
entire period of functioning as Panchayat President, she availed
leave from the School. The learned Senior Government pleader,
by pointing out Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009, submitted that the engagement
of a Teacher for another job, apart from teaching simultaneously
is against the said section. Section 27 of the Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 reads thus;
"27. No teacher shall be deployed for any non-educational
purposes other than the decennial population census, disaster
relief duties or duties relating to election to the local authority or
the State Legislatures or Parliament, as the Case may be."
13. Relying on Exts.P7 and P8 orders, the learned Single
Judge passed the impugned judgment in favour of the respondent-
writ petitioner. By Ext.P7 order dated 16.01.1998, the
Government ordered that the Presidents/Chairmen/Chairpersons
of the Local Bodies constituted under the Kerala Panchayat Raj
Act, 1994, and the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994, will be granted
special leave without pay for attending their duties under the
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Kerala Municipalities Act for one
entire academic year at a time or part thereof or for the entire
period of their holding such office. The period of such leave will be
counted for increment, higher scale of pay and pensions, but not
WA NO. 1552 OF 2025 13 2025:KER:80592
for leave, if so required. Subsequently, the Government issued
Ext.P8 order clarifying that the leave to be allowed to such persons
need not be leave without allowance. However, by the order dated
15.03.2008, it was again clarified that the Panchayat Presidents
and Chairpersons of the Municipalities have to discharge their
duties for full time as per Section 153(10) of the Kerala Panchayat
Raj Act and Section 10(1) of the Kerala Municipalities Act
respectively, and hence they have to obtain leave from their
parent Department and are entitled for the leave salary alone from
the parent Department. By the said Government order, the Ext.P8
order relied on by the learned Single Judge is modified. But in the
writ petition, the respondent has not challenged the Government
order dated 15.03.2008, as rightly argued by the learned Senior
Government Pleader. In view of the aforesaid Government Order,
it is clear that the respondent is entitled to only the leave salary,
if any entitled, for the aforesaid period. The learned Single Judge
did not consider these aspects while passing the impugned
judgment.
14. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the
discussions made above, it is only to be held that the respondent
WA NO. 1552 OF 2025 14 2025:KER:80592
cannot claim honorarium for her duties as Panchayath President
as well as salary from her parent department for the same period.
Therefore, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed by the
learned Single Judge.
In the result, the writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the
impugned judgment dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.2851 of 2018, and the writ petition
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
DSV/-
