Teachers elected to local authority posts are entitled to special leave and benefits, as KSR provisions are subject to overriding statutes governing their employment.

JUDGMENT :

(HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.)

[WP(C) Nos.25745/2018 and 31284/2019]

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 dated 21.01.2015, 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 dated 03.07.2015, 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 dated 29.03.2016. 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 3^rd 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 Section I, under which Rule 61 falls, speaks about the “extent of application”. Rule 61 reads as under:-

“61. Unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided, the rules in this Chapter apply to all Officers to whom these service rules as a whole apply.”

A reading of the afore would show that it is only in a situation where the question of extension of leave, etc., has not been otherwise distinctly provided, that the provisions of Chapter IX would apply. In the case at hand, it is the contention raised from the side of the respective petitioners that they are governed by the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997. In this connection, I notice the provisions of Statute 26 under Chapter 45 Part B of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, which reads as under: -

“26. Grant of leave:

(1) The principal shall be the authority to grant casual leave.

(2) Other kinds of leave shall be granted by the educational agency on the recommendation of the principal:

Provided that previo