IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 9147 of 2008(L) PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. PREETHI. M., D/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 33 HSA ENGLISH, GOVERNMENT GHSS MADAPPALLY, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. 2. SAJITHA P.P.., D/O MOOSSA, AGED 33 YEARS ASSISTANT TEACHER, M.U.M.V.H.S.S.VATAKARA 3, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. 3. SAPNA NAMBIAR, D/O K.DAMODARAN, AGED 31 ST. ANTONY'S G.H.S. VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, SECRETARY TO GOVELRNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. DIRECTOR, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BY ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO PURSUE B.ED.COURSE TO FIRST WRIT PETITIONER DATED 20.7.2004. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BY ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA TO PURSUE B.ED COURSE TO 2ND WRIT PETITIONER DATED 24.7.2003. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BY ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA TO PURSUE B.ED COURSE TO 3RD WRIT PETITIONER DATED 14.8.2003. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT DATED 22.9.2006 IN W.P.(C) NO.31276 OF 2004. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT BY THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 9147 OF 2008 L ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners are teachers working in different schools. They were granted leave without allowance as per Exts.P1 to P3 orders. As per Ext.P1 order dated 20.7.2004, the first petitioner was granted leave without allowance for 224 days from 22.6.2003 to 31.1.2004 for undergoing B.Ed Course. As per Ext.P2 order dated 24.7.2003, the second petitioner was granted leave without allowance for the period from 26.7.2003 to 31.1.2004 for undergoing B.Ed Course. As per Ext.P3 order dated 14.8.2003, the third petitioner was granted leave without allowance for 272 days from 5.5.2003 to 31.1.2004 for undergoing B.Ed Course. In Exts.P1 to P3 it is so recorded that the leave period will not be counted for any service benefits including pension and that fact will be recorded in the service book of the teacher concerned. 2. The first petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation before the Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode, pointing out that a writ petition filed by some other teachers was allowed by this Court and the observation in the orders granting leave that the leave period will not be counted for any service benefits was quashed. Similar benefit was W.P.(C) NO.9147 OF 2008 :: 2 :: sought for by the first petitioner in Ext.P5. As per Ext.P6 proceedings dated 25.9.2007, the Government rejected the request made by the first petitioner. The reason for rejection of the request was that the first petitioner was not a party to the writ petition in which the judgment relied on by the first petitioner was passed. Ext.P6 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The relief sought for by the petitioners is for a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefits like increments, grade promotions and pension, notwithstanding the observations in Exts.P1 to P3. There is also a prayer for quashing the objectionable conditions in Exts.P1 to P3. 4. 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 proviso. I am unable to accept this contention for two reasons. Firstly, R.91A is a separate rule entitling a person for claiming leave for taking Post Graduate Degree. W.P.(C) NO.9147 OF 2008 :: 3 :: 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.” 5. The issue involved in this Writ Petition is covered by the decision in Deepika's case. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition. The objectionable conditions in Exts.P1 to P3 are quashed. The petitioners would be entitled to increments and consequential benefits. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/