High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-03-05Writ petitions allowed; honorarium for maternit...

WP(C).Nos.705/2020(K), 715/2020(L), 728/2020(M)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).705/2020, WP(C).715/2020, WP(C).728/2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. ASHA
Judgment Date: 2020-03-05
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions allowed; respondents are directed to pay the honorarium for the respective periods of maternity leave to the petitioners within two months.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed; honorarium for maternity leave to be paid within two months to the petitioners.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Aneesa Surendran
Amala M. Lal
Annie Sara Sachariah

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Chief Secretary to Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Secretary to Government, Social Justice Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Director, Social Justice Department, Directorate of Social Justice (Annex), Social Justice Bhavan, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Rajesh Vijayan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Bijoy Chandran, Sr. GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This judgment disposes of three connected writ petitions challenging denial of maternity benefits to contract-based School Counselors in the Social Justice Department. The petitioners, Aneesa Surendran, Amala M. Lal, and Annie Sara Sachariah, worked under the Psycho Social Programme on short-term contracts since 2016, 2010, and 2012, with annual renewals. After completing one or more years of service, they availed maternity leave; although the leave was sanctioned, the corresponding honorarium payment was withheld. Government orders previously provided for 179 days of maternity leave without pay (Ext.R1(b)), later amended by Ext.R1(a) on 2 February 2019 to permit maternity leave with honorarium; the amendment, however, was held to have prospective effect. The respondents argued that since the petitions were filed for leave taken before 2 February 2019, they are not entitled to the honorarium. The petitioners relied on Rule 2 of Appendix-VIII of Part-1 KSR, which makes maternity leave admissible to contract-based officers continuing beyond one year, and on a 2018 judgment (Ext.P3) allowing similar claims for School Counselors. The Court, citing the 2018 judgment, held that the petitioners’ claims should be governed accordingly, and directed payment of honorarium for the relevant maternity periods within two months. The decision harmonizes policy with existing jurisprudence on contractual service and maternity entitlements.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 2 of Appendix-VIII of Part-1 KSRRule 100Rule 101 of the Kerala State Rules (KSR)G.O.(Rt.) No.65/19/SJD dated 02.02.2019

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that although maternity leave was sanctioned, the attendant honorarium was denied under the pre‑2019 policy. They relied on Rule 2 of Appendix‑VIII, Part‑I of the Kerala State Rules (KSR) to admit maternity leave to contract-based officers continuing beyond one year, and on the 2018 Ext.P3 judgment allowing similar claims for School Counselors, arguing that the amendment in 2019 (Ext.R1(a)) was prospective and could not bar relief for leaves already taken. They urged payment of honorarium for the periods of maternity leave.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submitted that Ext.R1(b) (2009) provided 179 days of maternity leave without pay, later amended by Ext.R1(a) (2019) to grant maternity leave with honorarium but with prospective effect. Since the petitioners availed leave before 02.02.2019, they were not entitled to the honorarium. They relied on resource constraints and the retroactive application principles, citing the policy framework and the Najeema M. M. decision to support contract-based treatment beyond one year.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Najeema M. M. & others v. Kerala State Beverages Corporation (M&M) Sasthamangalam & others	2013 (1) KHC 128	Positive	Cited to support that maternity leave admissibility extends to contract-based employees beyond one year under Rule 2 of Appendix-VIII of Part‑I KSR.
Judgment in WPC No.21782/2018	WPC 21782/2018	Positive	Ext.P3 judgment allowed similar claims for School Counselors; used as basis to grant honorarium in the present petitions.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against WP(C).Nos.705/2020(K), 715/2020(L), 728/2020(M) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.705 OF 2020(K)** ## **PETITIONER:** **ANEESA SURENDRAN, AGED 34 YEARS W/O. SANTHOSH, ODIYIL HOUSE, THELLAKOM P. O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM - 686 607.** **BY ADV. SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **3 DIRECTOR, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE (ANNEX), SOCIAL JUSTICE BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 012.** **SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR. GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).715/2020(L), WP(C).728/2020(M), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)Nos.705, 715 & 728 of 2020** **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** ## **THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.715 OF 2020(L)** ## **PETITIONER:** **AMALA M. LAL, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. RENO R. CHANDRAN, MADHAVA MANGALAM, TC 29/1159, OBSERVATORY LANE, 200 NANDAVANAM, TRIVANDRUM – 695 033.** **BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 3 DIRECTOR, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE (ANNEX), SOCIAL JUSTICE BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 002. SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR. GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).705/2020(K), WP(C).728/2020(M), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)Nos.705, 715 & 728 of 2020** **3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.728 OF 2020(M)** ## **PETITIONER:** **ANNIE SARA SACHARIAH, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. KIREN IMMANUEL, PULUNCHERIL HOUSE, NELLIMALA POST, ERAVIPEROOR 689 542.** **BY ADV. SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPAURAM - 695 001. 3 DIRECTOR, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE (ANNEX), SOCIAL JUSTICE BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012. SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR. GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).705/2020(K), WP(C).715/2020(L), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)Nos.705, 715 & 728 of 2020** **4** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 5th day of March 2020** The petitioners in all these cases, who availed maternity leave, were denied the maternity benefits. They are working as School Counselors from 01.01.2016, 22.02.2010 and 02.01.2012 respectively, on appointment under the Psycho Social Programme of the Social Justice Department, on contract basis. Their contract appointments were renewed from time to time for a period of one year each. They submitted applications for maternity leave after they completed one year or more of contract appointment. Even though maternity leave was sanctioned, the benefits were not granted to them. It is stated that as per Ext.P2 letter the Director of Social Justice Department informed the petitioner in WP(C) No.705 of 2020 that a proposal has already been submitted before the Government for grant of maternity leave along with **WP(C)Nos.705, 715 & 728 of 2020** **5** salary and appropriate steps would be taken for payment of the same on receipt of orders from the Government. Petitioners have therefore filed these writ petitions since no positive steps are taken for payment of the same. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a statement stating that as per clause (h) of Ext.R1(b) order dated 03.11.2009 Government had ordered that 179 days of maternity leave without pay would be sanctioned to the school counselors. The clause (h) of Ext.R1(b) order was amended as per Ext.R1(a) order – G.O.(Rt) No.65/19/SJD dated 02.02.2019 substituting the words “maternity leave without pay” as “Maternity Leave with honorarium”. But the stand of the Government is that the said amendment can only have prospective effect from 02.02.2019 and since the petitioners availed leave much before Ext.R1(a) order was issued, they will not be entitled to the benefit of honorarium towards the maternity leave availed by them. 3. The respondents do not dispute that the **WP(C)Nos.705, 715 & 728 of 2020** **6** petitioners have been continuing on contract basis from the respective years 2016, 2010 and 2012 etc. and that they have already completed more than one year on contract employment. Even if there was any artificial break in between the renewal of contract that's only to be ignored, in the light of the judgment in **Najeema M. M & others v. Kerala State Beverages corporation (M&M) Sasthamangalam & others** : [2013 (1) KHC 128]. Their claim would be governed by Rule 2 of Appendix - VIII of Part - 1 KSR which provides that “Maternity leave under Rule 100 and 101 will be admissible to female officers appointed on contract basis continuing in service beyond one year, provided they would continue in service but for proceeding such leave”. 4. I have already allowed similar claims of School Counselors vide Ext.P3 judgment dated 08.10.2018 in a batch of cases namely WP(C) No.21782 of 2018 and connected cases. Therefore, the case of the petitioners would also be governed by the said judgment and petitioners should be entitled to honorarium for the **WP(C)Nos.705, 715 & 728 of 2020** **7** period during which they availed maternity leave. These writ petitions are therefore allowed directing the respondents to see that the honorarium for the respective periods of maternity leave as mentioned above are paid to the petitioners within a period of two months. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. **Sd/P.V.ASHA JUDGE** SPR **WP(C)Nos.705, 715 & 728 of 2020** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 705/2020** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 03/11/2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/03/2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.21782/2018. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.** **WP(C)Nos.705, 715 & 728 of 2020** **9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 715/2020** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.21782/2018 DATED 08.10.2018.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT.) NO. 65/2019/SJD DATED 02.02.2019. ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 03.11.2009.** **WP(C)Nos.705, 715 & 728 of 2020** **10** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 728/2020** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 10.08.2017.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR SALARY AS PER MATERNITY BENEFIT ACT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 21782/2018.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.**