Allowed

P C Sokan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jan 2021WP(C)/6665/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order denying service benefits to a High School Teacher claiming study leave was not properly sanctioned under the correct rules, directing the competent authority to issue fresh orders for leave under Rule 91A of Kerala Service Rules.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Government order Ext.P9 quashed; directed competent authority to issue fresh orders for leave under Rule 91A within three months and disburse incurred benefits.

P C Sokan Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.6665 OF 2019(G)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P C ASOKAN AGED 48 YEARS HSST JUNIOR (MALAYALAM), PERAMBRA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, P.O.PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 525

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 573

¶12

3 THE HEADMATER, PERAMBRA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, P.O.PERAMBRA ,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 525

¶13

SRI. P.M.MANOJ - GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.6665 OF 2019

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner says that he joined as a

¶19

High School Assistant in Malayalam (HSA) in the Perambra Higher Secondary School, Kozhikode, with effect from 10/10/1995 and that he applied for Half Pay Leave (HPL) of 298 days from 10/01/2015 to 25/10/2015, along with Leave Without Allowance (LWA) for 66 days from 26/10/2015 to 31/12/2015, to pursue

¶20

a regular Post Graduate Course leading to the degree of M.Ed.

¶21

The petitioner says that his

¶22

application for leave was sanctioned by the 3^rd respondent – Headmaster under Rule 91 of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR for short), as is evident from Ext.P4 Service Book, but that when the proposal for approval of the leave substitute teacher came up before the 2^nd respondent – District Educational Officer, his application for leave was rejected

¶23

through Ext.P3, holding that such leave for

¶24

¶25

WP(C).No.6665 OF 2019

¶26

study purposes cannot be allowed by the

¶27

Headmaster, but only by the Government.

¶28

therefore, submitted a fresh application for leave, namely Ext.P6, before the Government,

¶29

along with Ext.P5 Proforma, because its

¶30

duration was required only for 54 days from 26/10/2015 to 18/12/2015 and since, in the meanwhile, the endorsements in his Service

¶31

Book with respect to the earlier approval for leave had been ordered to be cancelled.

¶32

The petitioner says that, however,

¶33

the Government has now issued Ext.P9 holding that the 3^rd respondent - Headmaster had no competence to sanction leave under Rule 91A

¶34

of Part I of KSR, but that he could have sanctioned it only under Rule 88 Part I of KSR, which would not count for any service

¶35

benefits. He says that, he is, therefore, constrained to impugn Ext.P9, since it is

¶36

WP(C).No.6665 OF 2019

¶37

¶38

illegal and contrary to the provisions of the

¶39

applicable law.

¶40

Shri.R.K.Muralidharan, learned

¶41

counsel for the petitioner, added to the

¶42

afore submissions by saying that the leave

¶43

availed by his client was originally

¶44

sanctioned with all benefits, as is manifest from Ext.P4, but that this was subsequently

¶45

directed to be cancelled by the 2^nd

¶46

respondent saying that the Headmaster had no

¶47

power to sanction such leave; which consequently, led to the endorsement in his

¶48

service book, namely Ext.P4(a), to be

¶49

cancelled. He contends that this was done

¶50

without even hearing his client and that,

¶51

therefore, the entire action is vitiated in law.

¶52

Shri.R.K.Muralidharan concluded his

¶53

legal submissions by saying that the

¶54

direction of the 1^st respondent – State of

¶55

WP(C).No.6665 OF 2019

¶56

¶57

Kerala in Ext.P9, to treat the period of LWA from 26/10/2015 to 18/12/2015 to be under Rule 88 Part I of the KSR is illegal, since the petitioner is statutorily entitled for such leave under Rule 91A of Part I of KSR. He then explained that on account of the controversy in question, his client has not been sanctioned his eligible increments from 2015 and that his Selection Grade, which was due to him in 2018, has also been denied to him, though he has been promoted as an HSST

¶58

(Junior) in the year 2018. He, therefore, prayed that Ext.P9 be set aside and his client be given all the benefits based on his application for leave, under Rule 91A of Part I of KSR.

¶59

In response, the learned Government Pleader, Shri.P.M.Manoj, submitted that, as is luculent from Ext.P9, the Government has found that the 3^rd respondent could have sanctioned leave to the petitioner only

¶60

WP(C).No.6665 OF 2019

¶61

¶62

under Rule 88 of Part I of the KSR and

¶63

therefore, that the endorsements in Ext.P4(a) service was irregular, thus being liable to

¶64

be reversed. He submitted that this is

¶65

exactly what has been done through Ext.P9 and prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶66

submissions and have also examined the materials available on record.

¶67

petitioner, his application for LWA had been

¶68

sanctioned by the 3^rd respondent, as is

¶69

limpid from the endorsements in Ext.P4

¶70

Service Book, under Rule 91 of Part I of the

¶71

KSR from 26/10/2015 to 31/12/2015.

¶72

Subsequently, the period was limited to 18/12/2015, since the petitioner rejoined

¶73

duty in the afternoon of that day. This is

¶74

also recorded in Ext.P4 Service Book of the petitioner.

¶75

WP(C).No.6665 OF 2019

¶76

¶77

However, the grant of leave by the

¶78

3^rd respondent was objected to by the 2^nd

¶79

respondent saying that such a decision could have been taken only by the Government. The petitioner, thereupon made his application before the Government which, however, led to Ext.P9, wherein, it has been recorded that the Headmaster could have granted leave to the petitioner only under Rule 88 Part I of the KSR and therefore, that the said period of leave would not count for any service benefits.

¶80

I am afraid that I cannot find

¶81

favour with Ext.P9 because it is indubitable that the petitioner has applied for LWA for 66 days from 26/10/2015 to 31/12/2015 for

¶82

attending a regular Post Graduate Course leading to the degree of M.Ed. Even if the Headmaster had no competence to grant the leave under Rule 91A Part I of the KSR, the Government certainly could have considered

¶83

WP(C).No.6665 OF 2019

¶84

¶85

the same under the said provisions; but

¶86

instead of doing so, it has now issued Ext.P9 order merely saying that because the Headmaster could have granted the leave only under Rule 88 Part I of the KSR, the

¶87

petitioner is only entitled the same.

¶88

This stand of the Government certainly cannot find support in law,

¶89

particularly when there is no dispute as to the fact that the petitioner had undergone a regular course of study leading to M.Ed., during the period when he had been applied for leave.

¶90

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and quash Ext.P9; consequently, directing the competent Authority to issue appropriate fresh orders on the application of the petitioner for leave under Rule 91A of

¶91

Part I of the KSR, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶92

¶93

WP(C).No.6665 OF 2019

¶94

this judgment; resultant to which, if he is so found eligible, all benefits to him - including his increments and such other - shall be disbursed without any further delay thereafter.

¶95

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶96

Sd/-

¶97

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶98

JUDGE

¶99

MC/6.1.2021

¶100

WP(C).No.6665 OF 2019

¶101

¶102

APPENDIX

¶103

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶104

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF HE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AWH COLLEGE OF EDUCATION DATED 18.12.2015
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.08.2016
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF PAGE 40 OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4A	TRUE COPY OF PAGE 43 OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PERFOMA TO ACCOMPANY THE APPLICATION LWA FOR STUDY PURPOSE
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.09.2017
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE HEADMASTER
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2018
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.02.2019

P C Sokan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P C Sokan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shine Plast Vs Assistant State Tax Officer

Mohammed Musthafa Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Sabu A.A. Vs the Authorized Officer

Prasannakumar Vs Hdfc Bank

Anoop Poulose Vs Joint Labour Commissioner

Ashai Kumar Vs the Trivandrum Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.