MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Completion of 7 Years Service in the Pay Scale of Headmaster is the Requirement for Higher Grade: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar, P.G. Ajithkumar, and C.S. Sudha clarified the eligibility criteria for higher grade pay for headmasters in aided secondary schools. The Court held that "completion of 7 years service in the pay scale of Headmaster is the requirement for getting the first grade pay" for headmasters, decisively interpreting the pertinent rules under the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (KER).

Legal Point of Judgement: The key legal issue revolved around whether the eligibility for a higher grade for a headmaster in an Aided Complete Secondary School is determined by seven years of service as a headmaster or by seven years of service in the headmaster’s scale of pay.

Facts and Issues of the Judgement: The appellant, State of Kerala, contested the interpretation that mere service as a headmaster for seven years was sufficient for eligibility for a higher grade. The respondent, a retired headmaster, contended for eligibility based on tenure in the position. The Court noted the existence of conflicting decisions in previous judgments, necessitating a definitive interpretation.

Court Assessment: The Court thoroughly analyzed Rule 44A of Chapter XIV-A and Rule 3 of Chapter XXVI of KER, emphasizing that a graduate teacher is eligible for the Headmaster's scale of pay only after 16 years of continuous service. The Court observed, “holding the post of Headmaster does not enable a teacher to draw the salary of a Headmaster.” The Court further noted the importance of service in the pay scale for eligibility for higher grades, referencing various precedents including 'Indira v State of Kerala' and 'Shivadasan v. State of Kerala'.

Decision: The Court clarified that for Headmasters of Aided Complete Secondary Schools, eligibility for a higher grade is based on service in the pay scale of the Headmaster, rather than merely the duration of holding the position. The Court declared the judgment in W.A.No.1577 of 2010, which had held to the contrary, as per incuriam (not according to law due to lack of consideration of a legal rule or principle), thereby affirming the decision in W.A.No.1886 of 1997.

Decision Dated 16th February 2024.

State of Kerala vs C. Kunhikkamma, Headmaster

Latest Legal News