The Kerala High Court on October 28, 2025, set aside a Single Judge’s decision that had permitted a teacher to simultaneously draw salary as a Headmistress and receive honorarium as President of a Grama Panchayat. Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. held that she was entitled only to leave salary from the Education department, emphasising that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 prohibits teachers from engaging in other public duties while continuing in full-time teaching service.
This case arose when the respondent, a Headmistress of a Lower Primary School in Kozhikode district, who was also serving as the elected President of the Gram Panchayat between 08.11.2010 and 21.11.2012, challenged the recovery proceedings initiated against her for having drawn her regular salary as a teacher while simultaneously receiving honorarium for the elected post. The appellants contended that under a Government Order dated 15.03.2008, the Panchayat Presidents and Municipal Chairpersons are only entitled to leave salary from their parent department in addition to the honorarium, and therefore the respondent could not legally claim both benefits at the same time. They argued that the said Government Order had not been challenged in the writ proceedings, and further relied on Section 27 of the RTE Act, 2009, to assert that teachers are prohibited from undertaking non-educational duties during school hours, thereby rendering the respondent’s dual engagement impermissible.The respondent contended that Section 3A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Honorarium and Allowances to Representatives of People) Rules, 1995 permitted elected representatives to receive honorarium irrespective of other sources of income. She relied on a later Government clarification which stated that there was no restriction on elected representatives continuing in other employment for their livelihood or availing eligible leave from their parent department, and therefore claimed that the recovery action initiated against her was unsustainable.The Single Judge accepted her contentions, holding that since the Government itself had clarified the permissibility of continuing in other employment and taking sanctioned leave, the recovery orders could not be justified set aside the recovery proceedings allowing her to receive both salary and honorarium for the relevant period. The appellants, aggrieved, approached the Court reiterating that the respondent could not simultaneously enjoy both financial benefits contrary to the Government Order and statutory restrictions.
The Court noted that the orders relied upon by the respondent were Government directives governing the service conditions of elected local body heads, particularly regarding leave and permissible monetary benefits while holding such offices. However, a subsequent Government Order issued in 2008 made it explicit that Panchayat Presidents and Municipal Chairpersons are required to discharge their duties full-time and must therefore obtain leave from their parent departments only allowing them only to leave salary for the relevant period. Since this later directive, which modified the earlier position, had not been challenged by the respondent, the Court held that she could not draw both her regular salary and the honorarium simultaneously. The Court also acknowledged that the statutory prohibition in Section 27 of the RTE Act, 2009 reinforced that a teacher cannot be continuously engaged in non-educational public duties while drawing a full salary from the education department. Therefore the Court set aside the dual benefit order by the Single Judge and dismissed the petition accordingly.
Appearances:
For the Appellants- Smt. Nisha Bose
For the Respondent- Adv. M. A Fayaz
