Kerala High Court Rules Teacher Cannot Draw Dual Salary While Serving as Panchayat President

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a government aided school Headmistress who simultaneously held the post of Panchayat President is not entitled to draw both her regular salary as a teacher and the honorarium payable to the Panchayat President for the same period.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. delivered the judgment on October 28, 2025, in Writ Appeal No. 1552 of 2025, allowing the State’s appeal against the decision of a Single Judge that had earlier favoured the teacher.

The court held that a person cannot receive dual remuneration from public funds for discharging two roles concurrently, especially where one of them is a full-time office such as that of a Panchayat President.

“The respondent cannot claim honorarium for her duties as Panchayat President as well as salary from her parent department for the same period,” the Bench observed, setting aside the earlier judgment and dismissing the writ petition filed by the teacher.

The appeal was filed by the State of Kerala and other officials of the Education and Local Self Government Departments, challenging the judgment dated November 14, 2024, in W.P.(C) No. 2851 of 2018.

The case originated from a petition filed by Khadeeja V, Headmistress of A.M.L.P. School, Paipulassery, Kozhikode, who had contested the 2010 local body elections and was elected as President of Madavoor Grama Panchayat. She continued to hold the position from November 8, 2010, to November 21, 2012, while still drawing her salary as Headmistress and also receiving honorarium as Panchayat President.

Acting on a complaint that she had received dual payments, the Education Department initiated proceedings to recover the salary she earned during that period.

The teacher argued that her actions were supported by Rule 3A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Honorarium and Allowances to Representatives of People) Rules, 1995, which entitled her to receive honorarium as Panchayat President even if she was drawing income from another source. She relied on two government orders, G.O.(Ms) No.203/2002/LSGD dated November 25, 2002, and G.O.(P) No.28/98/G. Edn dated January 16, 1998, which, according to her, permitted such dual entitlements.

The State, however, maintained that as per G.O.(Ms) No.81/08/LSGD dated March 15, 2008, Panchayat Presidents and Municipal Chairpersons were required to avail leave from their parent departments and could receive only leave salary, not full salary and honorarium simultaneously.

The government also cited Section 153(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which designates the President as a full time functionary of the Panchayat responsible for executing its duties.

During the proceedings, the Division Bench noted that the teacher had availed only 36 days of commuted leave while holding both positions for over two years. The Bench also referred to Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which prohibits teachers from being deployed for non-educational purposes other than specified duties such as census or election work.

The Single Judge had earlier relied on the 1998 and 2002 government orders, which suggested that Panchayat Presidents could be granted permitted leave without necessarily foregoing their salaries. However, the Division Bench pointed out that the 2008 order, which was issued later, clarified and modified the earlier position, making it mandatory for such employees to take leave without pay from their departments while holding full time local body positions.

Significantly, the Court observed that the 2008 Government Order was never challenged in the writ petition and, therefore, remained binding. It ruled that the Single Judge had failed to consider this critical aspect while granting relief to the petitioner.

Consequently, the Division Bench allowed the State’s appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and restored the government’s decision to recover the excess amount drawn by the teacher.

With this ruling, the Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that employees holding full time posts in government-aided institutions cannot simultaneously draw honorarium or remuneration for another full-time public office. The decision underscores the obligation of public servants to comply with statutory rules and government orders designed to prevent overlapping of financial benefits from the state exchequer.

Case Title: State of Kerala & Ors. v. Khadeeja V

Bench: Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S.

Date of Judgment: October 28, 2025