IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 7099 of 2006(T)
1. JYOTHY. S., D/O. P.K. SOMASEKHARA
... Petitioner
2. SANDHYA. G., D/O. GOPINATHAN NAIR,
3. RADHAMANI K.G., W/O. P. HARIKUMAR,
4. SHAREEFA BEEVI K.M.,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. KULANADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :23/11/2007
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 7099 OF 2006
------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are former High School Assistants in the
High School managed by Kulanada Grama Panchayat. They had
service as follows:
“1. Smt. Jyothi.S. 17.07.1999 to 31.03.2000
05.06.2000 to 06.06.2003.
2. Smt. Radhamony 29.10.1998 to 31.03.1999
07.06.1999 to 06.06.2003.
3. Smt. Sandhya.G. 20.07.1999 to 31.03.2000
05.06.2000 to 06.06.2003.
4. Smt. Shareefa Beevi 29.10.1998 to 31.3.1999
07.06.1999 to 06.06.2003.”
2. Originally, they claimed appointment in future
vacancies in recognition of their rights under Rule 51A of Chapter
XIVA of K.E.R. In view of the subsequent Supreme Court
decision on the subject, the same is not allowable now. The
W.P.(c) No. 7099/06 2
petitioners now confine their reliefs for payment of vacation
salary, which according to them, they are entitled to by virtue
of Rule 49 of Chapter XIVA of K.E.R. The same has been
denied to them by Ext.P1 Government order. The petitioners
challenge Ext.P1 Government order and seek a direction to the
respondents to grant them vacation salary for the vacations
coming in between their date of appointment and date of
termination of service.
3. The leraned Government pleader’s contention is that
these petitioners were originally appointed under Rule 9(a)(i)
of KS & SSR, whose services were terminated on the last day
of the academic year of the relevant year. Subsequently, they
were appointed pursuant to judgments of this Court and
therefore, they are not entitled to vacation salary.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. In
Ext.P1, the claim is rejected in the following words:
“Regarding the 3rd request it is found that
the 3rd petitioner Smt. Jyothi alone is eligible
for vacation salary under Rule 49 of Chapter
XIVA, KERs for the academic year 1999-2000
having 8 months service as on 31.3.1999. The
same is allowed Smt. Jyothi.S. will be paid the
vacation salary for 1999-2000. The District
Education Officer, Pathanamthitta will take
necessary further action in the matter.
W.P.(c) No. 7099/06 3
5. From a reading of the above, it is clear that the
Government also recognised the right of the petitioner to get
vacation salary under Rule 49 of Chapter XIVA of KER. That
being so, it defies logic as to why Smt.Jyothi alone should be
paid vacation salary that too only for the year 1999-2000. In
so far Smt. Jyothi and Smt. Sandhya are concerned, they had
the qualifications for vacation salary for both the original
period of service and the subsequent period of service. In
respect of Smt. Radhamani K.G. and Smt. Shareefa Beevi
K.M., although they are not entitled to vacation salary for the
first spell of service, they are certainly entitled to vacation
salary for all the vacations coming in between their date of
appointment and date of termiantion of service in the 2nd spell.
That being so, Ext.P1 to the extent it denies the petitioners
vacation salary as above is clearly unsustainable.
6. Accordingly, Ext.P1, to the extent it denies the
vacation salary to the petitioners, is quashed. All the
petitioners are also entitled to festival allowance for the 2nd
spell of their appointments, since evidently they had more than
ten months’ service during the 2nd spell which is admittedly the
eligibility condition for entitlement of festival allowance. The
W.P.(c) No. 7099/06 4
2nd respondent is directed to see that the petitioners are paid
vacation salary for the period for which they are so entitled,
as directed above, within a period of one month from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c) No. 7099/06 5