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. 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 previous sanction of Government shall be obtained for grant of leave without allowances in excess of 4 months at a time including leave without allowances on medical grounds.” A reading of the afore provision would show that it is for the principal to grant casual leave, etc., to the applicant. It is further provided that other kinds of leave are to be granted by the educational agency, on the basis of the recommendation provided by the principal. In the case at hand, this Court notices that there is no dispute as regards the recommendation from the side of the principals in question. It is further provided that other kinds of leave are to be granted by the educational agency, on the basis of the recommendation provided by the principal. In the case at hand, this Court notices that there is no dispute as regards the recommendation from the side of the principals in question. It is also to be noticed that the intervention of the Government is required only in a situation where the grant of leave without allowance is in excess of a period of four months. 4. On the face of the afore, this Court notices the contention raised by Sri.Gorden, the learned Government Pleader with reference to the provisions of Statute 42(1) of the very same Chapter, which reads as under: - “ 42. Application of the Kerala Service Rules to the teachers:- (1) Subject to the provisions of the Act, and the Statutes, the rules contained in Parts I and II of the Kerala Service Rules for the time being in force, except those mentioned below, shall, so far as may be, apply to teachers of private colleges.” True, as contended by the learned Government Pleader, the provisions of Part I and II of KSR are made applicable to teachers of private colleges. However, the provisions of the KSR are made applicable, “subject to the provisions of the Act, and the statute”. When that be so, though provisions of Part I of KSR are applicable to the teachers in question, this Court notices that by virtue of the operation of the provisions under Statute 26(1), the provisions of Rule 61 of Chapter IX Part I KSR are excluded. Hence, the respondents would not be justified in contending that the petitioners are bound by the provisions of KSR. 5. In such circumstances, this Court notices that, even as regards the teachers of private aided schools, similar benefits have been extended pursuant to Ext.P2 Government Order dated 16.01.1988. Even as regards the aided colleges, like the colleges where the petitioners were working, benefits have been extended; however, the same has been limited to the non-teaching staff, as seen from Ext.P6 dated 09.01.2008. 6. This Court also notices that by the Government Order dated 22.05.2025, produced as Ext.P11 in W.P(C)No.25745 of 2018, even regarding the Higher Secondary Schools, the teaching as well as non-teaching staff have been extended similar benefits. 6. This Court also notices that by the Government Order dated 22.05.2025, produced as Ext.P11 in W.P(C)No.25745 of 2018, even regarding the Higher Secondary Schools, the teaching as well as non-teaching staff have been extended similar benefits. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel, wisdom has prevailed on the Government, and there is a proposal for making amends to the statute, as seen from the University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2025, as per which a provision for extending leave to teachers like the petitioners herein has been made. True, the afore Bill is yet to be enacted. 7. On the whole, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits as prayed for in this writ petition. Resultantly, the captioned writ petitions would stand allowed, declaring that the petitioners would be entitled to the special leave for the period during which they have admittedly functioned as the Presidents of the Panchayats, along with the increments and such other benefits available to them. For implementing the afore directions, the impugned orders in the respective cases would stand set aside. Needful to be done in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.