Allowed

Rukhiya N.C v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2023WP(C)/29467/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Full Time Menial in an aided school, challenged denial of vacation salary for 2005-2006 academic year. Court held that rules on teaching staff vacancies do not apply mutatis mutandis to non-teaching staff and allowed the writ for vacation salary.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 set aside to the extent it excluded payment of vacation salary for 2005-2006; direction to 2nd respondent to approve appointment from 01.10.2005 and release benefits.

Rukhiya N.C Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 29467 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RUKHIYA N.C
AGED 43 YEARS
D/O. ALIKUTTY N.C. (LATE), FULL TIME MENIAL, AMHS,
VENGOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. RESIDING AT
NEERUTTICHALIL, URANGATTIRI, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 673639

¶8

BY ADVS.
SACHIN RAMESH
BRIJESH MOHAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, WANDOOR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679328 SRI. VENUGOPAL – GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WP(C) NO. 29467 OF 2023

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner is working as a Full Time Menial
in an aided school. She was appointed on 01.10.2005.
The approval was not initially granted from the date
of appointment and was granted only from 31.08.2008.
The petitioner challenged the above action and
finally this Court in the judgment in WP(C) No.28276
of 2019 directed the approval of the appointment of
the petitioner as Full Time Menial from 01.10.2005.
The 2nd respondent has issued consequential order as
Ext.P4, approving the appointment from 01.10.2005.
However, the 2nd respondent has not granted vacation
salary for the academic year 2005-2006, on the
reason that the petitioner did not have service of
more than 8 months in the academic year. The
contention taken is that the non-teaching staff are
also governed by the provisions which apply to the
teaching staff under Chapter XIV A Rule 49 KER.
Reliance is placed on Rule 7 of Chapter XXIV B which

¶17

¶18

WP(C) NO. 29467 OF 2023

¶19

says that, the rules regarding the appointment,
transfer from one educational agency to another
educational agency or the transfer under the same
educational agency, discipline, maintenance of
service records, confirmation, promotion, seniority,
and maintenance of seniority list contained in
Chapter XIV A and the Conduct Rules in Chapter XIV C
applicable to teachers in aided schools shall
mutatis mutandis apply to the non-teaching staff in
aided schools. Rule 7 of Chapter XXIV B does not
specifically say anything about entitlement to
vacation salary. The said aspect is stated only in
Rule 49 of Chapter XIV A, which says that qualified
teachers except Headmasters appointed in vacancies
which are not permanent, which extend over the
summer vacation and who continue in such vacancies
till the closing date shall be retained in the
vacancies during the vacation, if their continuous
service as on the closing date is not less than
eight months. It is stated that the teachers so

¶20

¶21

WP(C) NO. 29467 OF 2023

¶22

retained shall be entitled to vacation salary. It
also says that the teachers shall be relieved on the
closing day, if their continuous service as on that
day is less than the aforesaid period. The rule
further says that the rule will not apply to
teachers appointed in training vacancies. A reading
of the rule will clearly show that, it can never be
applied mutatis muntandis to a non-teaching staff,
since the very purpose of the rule is to see whether
the teacher is available during the vacations and
one aspect that is taken into consideration for the
above purpose is their continuation in the vacancy
after the summer vacations. There is no such
contingency in the case of a Full Time Menial.
Moreover, Ext.P3 order specifically says that the
service of the petitioner is continuous. As such,
there is no question of denying the vacation salary
by drawing an analogy to Rule 49 of Chapter XIV A.

¶23

¶24

WP(C) NO. 29467 OF 2023

¶25

The Writ petition is, hence, allowed. Ext.P4 to
the extent it excludes payment of salary to the
petitioner for the vacation of the academic year
2005-2006 is set aside. There will a direction to
the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the
petitioner from 01.10.2005 enabling the petitioner
to draw salary for the vacation of the academic year
2005-2006, within three weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment. The financial
benefits shall be released to the petitioner within

¶26

one month thereafter.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

T.R.RAVI JUDGE

¶29

BR

¶30

¶31

WP(C) NO. 29467 OF 2023

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29467/2023

¶33

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶34

Exhibit P1COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
1.10.2005 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, AMHS
VENGOOR
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E.M
(3)/85144/17/DGE/K.DIS DATED 18.7.2019
ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF
GENERAL EDUCATION.

¶35

Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF GO(RT)NO.2287/2022/GEDN
DATED 7-4-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.

¶36

Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B2/43081/2022 DATED
5-1-2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
12-8-2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT (WITHOUT
ENCLOSURES)

¶37

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL

Rukhiya N.C v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukhiya N.C v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mis.B.S.T.Ltd (Inliquidation) Represented by the Official Liquidator, Kerala Vs Nil

Suja George, Vs State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary

Anilkumar G. Vs Regional Deputy Director

Jobin P. Lukose Vs the State of Kerala

South Kerala Medical Mission Vs State of Kerala

Arun Shankar Vs State of Kerala