SAJI CHACKO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners contending that while they have been working as teachers in aided colleges affiliated to M.G.University, they were selected as Presidents of the Grama Panchayath/District Panchayat referred to in the writ petitions for a particular period of time. The petitioners contend that, during the period they worked as Presidents of the local authority as above, they were entitled to special leave protecting other service benefits available to them. As regards the petitioner in W.P(C) No.31284 of 2019, it is contended that the request for leave stood rejected at Ext.P1 dtd. 21/1/2015, with reference to certain Government Orders issued, holding that such benefits of leave, etc., are available only for "aided school teachers". The same stand has been repeated in Ext.P4 communication of the Government dtd. 3/7/2015, wherein reference has been made to the provisions of Rule 88 of Part I Kerala Service Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "KSR" for short), to contend that, if at all any benefits are available, it is the benefits extended under the afore provision that are available to the petitioner. The stand taken in Ext.P4 is repeated in Ext.P5 dtd. 29/3/2016. The averments in W.P(C) No.25745 of 2018 are more or less similar. It is in such circumstances, that these writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners seeking to quash the orders issued against them, by which, the application for leave was not properly processed and for a further direction, that they are entitled for grant of special leave for the period, during which they have admittedly worked as Presidents of the respective Panchayats, along with such other benefits that are available to them.

(2.) I have heard Sri. Tony George Kannanthanam, as well as Sri. Varghese M.Easo, the learned counsel for the respective petitioners, Sri. V.Philip Mathew, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent in W.P(C) No.25745 of 2018, and Sri. E.G.Gorden, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

(3.) The fact that the respective petitioners, while working as teachers in the aided colleges, were elected as Presidents of the respective Panchayats during the period mentioned in the writ petitions is not in dispute. The petitioners sought for special leave, with reference to the afore periods is also admitted. But the said benefit is declined mainly by making reference to the provisions of Rule 88, Part I KSR. In this connection, I notice the provisions of Rule 61, Part I KSR under Chapter IX. Chapter IX specifically deals with the "leave" and Sec. I, under which Rule 61 falls, speaks about the "extent of application". Rule 61 reads as under:-