SREEKUMAR P R Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case of the petitioners in brief is as follows: They were approved as Higher Secondary School Teachers. They availed leave without allowance for doing B.Ed training course. They rely on 3rd proviso to Rule 33(b)(2) of Part I KSR, according to which it is their case that they are entitled to increment. The Government has deleted the 3rd proviso to Rule 33(b)(2) Part 1 KSR with effect from 11-05-05. But it does not have retrospective effect. Petitioners availed leave prior to the amendment. Therefore they are entitled to 3rd proviso to Rule 33(b)(2) in regard to the leave availed by them.

(2.) First petitioner filed Ext.P5. But that was rejected by Ext.P6. In Ext.P6 reference is made to deletion of Rule 33 (b)(2). Bu the case of the petitioners is that the deletion cannot have retrospective effect and as long as it stood, the question is covered in their favour in view of the judgment of this court in W.P.(C)No.26782/05.

(3.) I heard learned Government Pleader also.