Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 1612
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Harisankar V. Menon, J.
Khadeeja V, Headmistress, A.M.L.P.School, Paipulassery, Muttancherry.P.O, Narikkuni,
Kozhikode - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Kerala Represented By Secretary To Government, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2851 Of 2018
Decided On : 14-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri.M.A.Fayaz, Smt.A.Lowsy
For the Respondent: Sri.Justin Jacob, Senior Government Pleader
IMPORTANT POINT
Elected representatives may receive honorarium while holding other employment without restrictions, as per the Kerala Panchayat Raj Rules.
Headnote:
(A) Kerala Panchayat Raj (Honorarium and Allowances to Representatives of People) Rules, 1995 - The petitioner, while serving as Headmistress, was also elected President of the Panchayat, receiving only an honorarium, not a double salary. The court clarified that she was entitled to the honorarium despite her government salary. (Paras 5, 6, 10)
(B) Government Orders - Exts.P7 and P8 confirm no prohibition for elected representatives to hold other employment and earn a livelihood. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested and won the local body election while continuing as Headmistress. Allegations arose regarding her receiving double salary, which the court found inaccurate.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to the honorarium and set aside the orders claiming double salary.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of receiving an honorarium while holding another government position.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the honorarium for elected representatives does not restrict them from other employment, aligning with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Rules.
Result: The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned orders.
JUDGMENT :
Harisankar V. Menon, J.
The petitioner, while working as the Headmistress in an aided school, had contested for the election to the local bodies during October, 2010. The petitioner came out successful and ultimately was appointed as the President of Madavoor Grama Panchayat. While working as the President of the Madavoor Grama Panchayat, as above, the petitioner was also continuing as the Headmistress of the school concerned, and she had also availed the eligible commuted leave, casual leave, special leave, etc., from the Department of Education. The petitioner had also received salary in her capacity as the Headmistress of the school concerned and she has also received the honorarium for functioning as the President of the afore Grama Panchayat.
2. However, certain proceedings were taken against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner was not entitled to receive the honorarium from the Panchayat and the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 03.10.2014. Subsequently, Ext.P5 communication dated 30.03.2015, was issued by the Director of Panchayats, Thiruvananthapuram, to the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Kozhikode, informing that the petitioner was receiving double salary while working as a teacher and while functioning as the President of the Panchayat. There was also a direction to report, as regards the steps taken to recover the salary received from the school. This is followed with Ext.P6 dated 12.01.2018 issued by the A.E.O., again alleging that the petitioner received double salary and therefore directing the recovery in that regard.
3. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition challenging the orders referred to above.
4. I have heard Sri.M.A.Fayaz, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Justin Jacob, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
5. The short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is as regards the proposed steps as per Exts.P5 and P6 against the petitioner herein. It may, straight away be clarified that the statements in Exts.P5 and P6 that the petitioner has received “double salary” does not appear to be the correct terminology insofar as the petitioner was receiving only one salary from the school and as regards the Panchayat, where she was functioning as the President, the petitioner was only entitled for receiving the honorarium as seen from Ext.P5. The provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Honorarium and Allowances to Representatives of People) Rules, 1995, provide for the salaries/allowances to the elected representatives in the Panchayats. The afore Rules, under Rule 3, provide that a President of the Panchayat is entitled for a particular honorarium. Clause 3A of the Rules reads as under:
“3A. Eligibility for honorarium.— The Representatives of people in a Panchayat shall be eligible for honorarium even if they have income from other sources including Government.”
(underlining supplied)
Thus, it is seen that the representatives of people in the Panchayat are eligible for getting the honorarium even if they have been receiving salary from other sources, including that from the Government.
6. It may, straight away, be noticed that even if the President was working in a non-Governmental agency also, she was entitled to the honorarium. In the case at hand, the petitioner was working with the school, wherein the salary was being met from the coffers of the Government.
7. A reference to Exts.P7 and P8 Government Orders would also be relevant. Ext.P7 Government Order was issued on 16.01.1998, wherein it is provided as under:
“II. Presidents/Chairmen/Chairpersons of local bodies constituted under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Kerala Municipalities Act 1994 and Chairmen/Chairpersons of standing committees constituted under such local bodies will be granted duty leave upto 20 days in an academic year without detrimental to their duties and responsibilities being a teacher in the school and to the academic interest of
