Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 28 (KER)

Ushakumari v. State of Kerala

2019-01-11

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

body2019
JUDGMENT : The short issue in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to reckon prior service in an aided school for the purpose of higher grade. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Sanskrit teacher on 22.9.1998 in an aided U.P.School, Pathaikkara. There was a delay in approving the appointment. The approval was granted only on 24.10.2000 as per Ext.P1 Government Order. The interesting question arises in the context of the request of the petitioner on 10.9.2000 to relieve from the service. The petitioner requested to relieve from the service. That was accepted by the Manager treating it as a resignation. 3. It is to be noted that the request of the petitioner to relieve from the service was prior to approval of appointment. If the break in service after resignation is more than one month, previous service will not reckon for the purpose of higher grade/increment. That was affirmed by the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Victoria ( 2018 (4) KLT 325 ). As per Chapter XIVA of Rule 53 of the Kerala Education Rules, a teacher shall not himself terminate his service before the expiry of the term of his appointment without the permission of the Educational Officer. Rule 54 of Chapter XIVA states that if any teacher resigns his appointment in any aided school, he shall not on re-appointment, be eligible to count his service prior to his resignation for purposes of increment or seniority on re-appointment. 4. The Government Order, G.O.(Ms) No.47/71/S.Edn. dated 21.04.1971 states that a teacher who resign from aided school to join service to another aided school and break in service is more than one month, the previous service shall not reckon for service benefits. Thus, it is clear that if the petitioner is resigned and there is a break in service more than one month, the petitioner will not entitle to reckon the service. That be so, this issue would have been easily decided. However, the facts in this case involved are totally different. The petitioner sought relieved from the service much before her approval was granted. Therefore, no permission was obtained from the Educational Officer. It is not a case covered by Rules 53 and 54 of Chapter XIVA of the KER. The question is whether this would have an impact upon claiming a past service. 5. The petitioner sought relieved from the service much before her approval was granted. Therefore, no permission was obtained from the Educational Officer. It is not a case covered by Rules 53 and 54 of Chapter XIVA of the KER. The question is whether this would have an impact upon claiming a past service. 5. Rules 53 and 54 of Chapter XIVA of the KER would not apply in the matter. So also G.O.(Ms)No.47/71/S.Edn.dated 21.04.1971. This Government Order can be only related to the matter covered under Rules 53 and 54 of Chapter XIVA of the KER. Therefore, the court has to consider whether any other provision would apply in the matter. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to G.O.(MS) 62/73/S.Edn. dated 2.5.1973. Clause (viii) of the said Government Order reads as follows: Reckoning of service for grant of higher grade: In lieu of continuous teaching service insisted on for the purpose of sanction of higher grade to teachers, total teaching service will count for higher grade to teachers. This concession shall take effect only from 1.1.1973. Arrears will also be given with effect from 1.1.1973. All types of service which are even now considered for higher grade will continue to be considered for the purpose. However, breaks in service exceeding 5 years will be reported to the Director of Public Instruction for consideration of the service before the break. Requests for condonation of break under the existing rules to enable teachers to get the higher grade earlier than 1.1.1973 which are pending with the Department and Government will continue to be considered and sanctioned under the existing rules. Future requests for condonation will not however be entertained. The question of counting the training period for increment to teachers is under examination of Government. 7. This proviso would clearly state that any break in service, less than five years can be reckoned for the purpose of higher grade and the matters exceeding five years will have to be reported to the Director of Public Instructions for consideration. 8. The endorsement for resignation by the Manager cannot be treated as resignation as understood under Rule 54 of Chapter XIVA of the KER. Rule 53 of Chapter XIVA of the KER mandates that the termination can be only with the prior permission of the Educational Officer. 8. The endorsement for resignation by the Manager cannot be treated as resignation as understood under Rule 54 of Chapter XIVA of the KER. Rule 53 of Chapter XIVA of the KER mandates that the termination can be only with the prior permission of the Educational Officer. Therefore, at any rate, the termination of the service of the petitioner cannot be treated as resignation. It is only in the matter of resignation as referred under Rule 54 of Chapter XIVA of the KER, it would entail the forfeiture of the past service. Rule 54 of Chapter XIVA of the KER, in fact, has been further explained by G.O.(Ms)No.47/71/S.Edn. dated 21.04.1971. The upshot of the discussion is that the termination of the petitioner’s service is not a matter not covered under Rules 53 or 54 of Chapter XIVA of the KER. G.O.(Ms)No.47/71/S.Edn. dated 21.04.1971 cannot be relied upon to object higher grade granted to the petitioner. This was sought to be applied to revoke the benefits granted to the petitioner and that resulted in filing of this Writ Petition. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside. The service benefits already granted to the petitioner reckoning previous service would stand restored. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.