[Kerala Education Rules] Service Against Two Different Vacancies Not 'Continuous' To Be Reckoned For Vacation Salary: High Court

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that for the purposes of claiming vacation salary, the teacher should have a continuous service of eight months in the vacancy (not permanent) which extends over summer vacation, as per Rule 49 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules.The Court arrived at this finding while answering the pointed query as to whether service under two different appointments against two different vacancies which are not permanent could be reckoned for the purpose of claiming vacation salary.The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Sureshkumar and Justice C.S. Sudha observed, "the expression "vacancies" has been used in the provision, as there would be different types of vacancies which are not permanent and the purpose of the Rule is to confer on all those who are appointed in such vacancies, the benefit of vacation salary, provided the conditions stipulated in the provision are duly satisfied. If the provision is understood in the said fashion, there cannot be any doubt to the fact that the expression 'continuous service' has been used in the context of those vacancies which extend over summer vacation in which the teacher is appointed".The Court was dealing with an appeal moved by a primary teacher, appointed in temporary vacancies, seeking vacation salary. She was initially appointed for a period from 28.07.2010 to 31.12.2013. During this time, another temporary vacancy arose in the School on 01.10.2013 and the Manager of the School shifted her, where she worked on daily wage basis till January 13, 2014. Thereafter, on termination of the said vacancy, the appellant was appointed in another temporary vacancy on 14.01.2014, which was also approved initially only on daily wage basis under two spells between 14.01.2014 to 31.03.2014 and from 01.06.2014 to 13.01.2015.The appellant was again appointed in another temporary vacancy for the period from 14.01.2015 to 31.05.2017, and after another vacancy arose on 01.06.2015, the Manager shifted her appointment to the said vacancy for the period from 01.06.2015 to 31.03.2017. Since no order was passed approving her appointment for the period from 14.01.2015 to 31.05.2017 before she was shifted, the Educational Officer approved the said appointment of the petitioner only for the period from 14.01.2015 to 31.03.2017 on daily wage basis. Subsequently, the appointment for the period 01.06.2015 to 31.03.2017 was approved by the Educational Officer on 31.01.2017.The appellant challenged appointment order thus issued by the Education Officer before the Government on the ground that the appointment ought to have been approved on regular scale. The Government however, rejected the same. The writ petition filed before the Single Judge challenging the same was also dismissed on the ground that since the appellant had not challenged the various orders approving her appointment under different spells, and since those orders had become final, she was not entitled to any relief in the writ petition.It is in this context that the instant appeal was filed. Advocates V.A. Muhammed, M. Sajjad, and P.A. Jenzia on behalf of appellant contended that Petitioner was working on regular scale right from 01.10.2013 to 31.03.2014 without interruption and there was no justification to decline her salary for the vacation after the academic year 2013-14. It was further contended that since the appointment of the petitioner for the period from 14.1.2015 to 31.05.2017 was for a period spreading over more than one academic year, there was absolutely no justification to approve only a portion of the said period from 14.01.2015 to 31.03.2015 on daily wage basis so as to deprive her regular scale for the said period. The Court ascertained that the grievance of the appellant herein was two-fold. As regards the first part, it perused Rule 49 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, and found that teachers appointed in vacancies which are not permanent are entitled to vacation salary if the vacancy in which they are appointed extend over the summer vacation, if their continuous service as on the closing day is not less than eight months. Appellant was denied vacation salary after the academic year 2013-2014 as she did not have continuous service of eight months from the date of her appointment till the closing day, Court said. The appellant however, had contended that she did have continuous service of more than eight months as on the closing day before the summer vacation if her service was reckoned from 01.10.2013, although her continuous service from 01.10.2013 to 31.03.2014 was under two different appointments against two different vacancies which were not permanent.The Court thus found that for claiming vacation salary, the teacher ought to have continuous service of eight months in the vacancy which extends over summer vacation, and found no basis for the averments raised by the petitioner in this regard.As regards the second grievance of the appellant, the Court...

[Kerala Education Rules] Service Against Two Different Vacancies Not 'Continuous' To Be Reckoned For Vacation Salary: High Court

Navya Benny

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

[Kerala Education Rules] Service Against Two Different Vacancies Not 'Continuous' To Be Reckoned For Vacation Salary: High Court

Navya Benny

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers