IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1059 of 2009(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.BABU RAJ, LPSA, ALPS, AYIROOR, MANNARKKADU, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MANNARKKADU. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 1059 of 2009-A --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd January, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as LPSA at ALPS Ariyoor. He was granted leave without allowance as per Ext.P1 order dated 21.2.2000 from 24.11.1999 to 31.3.2000 for undergoing B.Ed Course. In Ext.P2 order the 3rd respondent has objected to the counting of the period of leave without allowances as service for granting of increments. 2. The relief sought for by the petitioner is for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits like increment, grade promotion, accumulation of earned leave and pension. There is also a prayer to quash Exts.P2 and P3. 3. In Deepika V. State of Kerala (2007(1) KLT 71), it was held that the period of leave sanctioned for completing B.Ed Course shall be counted for service benefits including increments and pension. It was held thus: “4. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State that only if the leave is sanctioned under R.91A that both the proviso thereunder be attracted and in this particular case leave without allowance was sanctioned under R.88 and so the second proviso will not enable the petitioner to claim the benefit of that W.P(C) No. 1059 of 2009-A : : 2 : : proviso. I am unable to accept this contention for two reasons. Firstly, R91A is a separate rule entitling a person for claiming leave for taking Post Graduate Degree. A training course like B.Ed. is not a Post Graduate Degree Course and secondly, when the second proviso specifically refers to B.Ed course and the leave availed was for completing the said course must be understood as an independent provision and will entitle the person to claim the benefit of the said proviso, provided the Government cannot take away the benefit by virtue of any circular or executive order. In so far as Ext.P4 has taken away the statutory right conferred on the petitioner under the second proviso of sub r.2 of R.33, it is oppose to the statutory provisions and liable to be set aside.” 4. The issue involved in this Writ Petition is covered by the decision in Deepika's case. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition. Exts.P2 and P3 are quashed. The petitioner would be entitled to increments and consequential benefits. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. Sd/- K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab W.P(C) No. 1059 of 2009-A : : 3 : : W.P(C) No. 1059 of 2009-A : : 4 : : W.P(C) No. 1059 of 2009-A : : 5 : :