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 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 the students for attending to the meetings of the concerned local bodies.” Thus, Ext.P7 Government Order also provided that those Chairmen/ Chairpersons of the Standing Committees as well as the Chairmen/ Chairpersons of local bodies, were entitled to duty leave up to 20 days in an academic year without affecting their duties and responsibilities as teachers in the school. 8. The Government Order at Ext.P8 dated 25.11.2002 also accepts the ground realities and holds that insofar as only an honorarium is being extended for the elected representatives in a Panchayat/Municipality, there is no impediment for those elected representatives to have separate employment for earning a livelihood. Ultimately, Ext.P8 concludes by holding that there cannot be any restriction that the elected representatives are only eligible for leave without allowance. Ultimately, Ext.P8 concludes by holding that there cannot be any restriction that the elected representatives are only eligible for leave without allowance. A reading of Ext.P7 as well as Ext.P8 Government Orders show that there is no prohibition for an elected representative of a local body in working elsewhere and earning a livelihood. 9. It is to be noticed that the petitioner, upon being informed about the alleged irregularity, has tendered her resignation in the year 2012 and the said resignation is also accepted as seen from Ext.P2. 10. It is in the light of Exts.P7, P8 as well as Ext.P1 that the challenge against Exts.P5 and P6 are to be decided. On the face of the afore Government Orders, I am of the opinion that, Exts.P5 and P6 cannot be sustained. This is all the more so, since Exts.P7 and P8 are executive orders issued by the Government, and Ext.P1 is a statutory notification issued with reference to the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Honorarium and Allowances to Representatives of People) Rules, 1995. Resultantly, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. This writ petition would stand allowed setting aside the impugned orders at Exts.P5 and P6. It is to be noticed that the petitioner’s terminal benefits, upon her retirement from the school, which have been sanctioned as seen from Ext.P11, produced along with I.A.No.1 of 2024, are not disbursed on account of the afore reasons. It is also held that the petitioner would be entitled to the consequential benefits and the respondents to make sure that the retiral benefits are extended to the petitioner without any further delay, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.