AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Kanagaraj, J.—The Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the
Petitioner a sum of Rs. 21,201/- being wages payable to the Petitioner for the period between 26.6.1969 and 31.5.1975 with interest as may be
determined by this Court.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the Respondents as well.
From the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, what comes to be known is that the Petitioner was employed as a Teacher in one of the
Elementary Schools belonging to the first Respondent on 4.6.1953 and it is an aided school; that during his service, he passed B.A. degree in 1967
and B.T. in 1968 and thereupon registering his name with the Employment-exchange, he requested for the post of B.T. Assistant, but he was not
selected; that against his non-selection and certain irregularities committed by the authorities in that respect, he made representations to the higher
authorities and the same were disposed of on 15.10.1968-declining interference in the said matter; that having been induced by the Educational
Officers, the Co-Respondent of the School terminated the service of the Petitioner from 26.6.1969; that he preferred an appeal against the
termination to the District Educational Officer and the same was dismissed on 14.8.1969 in his Ref. No. Rc.86-Cl/68.
The further contention of the Petitioner is that on a Second Appeal preferred before the Chief Educational Officer, Coimbatore, the said
authority was pleased to set aside the order of the District Educational Officer as per his Ref. No. Dis.621 of 1969 dated 3.12.1969 and directed
to reinstate him with full salary from the date of termination treating the period of absence as on duty. The Petitioner would contend that the first
Respondent disobeyed the order of the Chief Educational Officer and refused to reinstate him with back wages. Hence, the Petitioner filed a writ
petition in W.P. No. 4617 of 1970; that in the meantime, the school was taken over by the Government in 1970 and. handed over the same to
Mettupalayam Municipality and ultimately, the Director of School Education in his Ref. No. P. Mu. 102486 of 1975 dated 4.6.1975 ordered to
absorb all the school teachers including the Petitioner in the Municipal school on condition that the beginning salary of the absorbed teacher shall be
the same as the last drawn salary in ? the previous school; that since several difficulties were met with in fixing the pay scale of Petitioner, after
several representations, the Petitioner had to file W.P. No. 8464 of 1989 and orders were passed on 5.12.1990 in the said writ petition pursuant
to which, the second Respondent passed an order dated 14.9.1990 in his Ref. No. Rc.9188 B 19/90 thereby fixing the salary and determining the
pay scale of the Petitioner in respect of the period from 1.6.1975 to 30.6.1990 paying only the salary of three months that is for the period from
1.4.1990 to 30.6.1990.
But, the salary payable to the Petitioner from 26.6.1969 to 31.5.1975 remains unpaid; that the second Respondent as per his order dated
14.9.1990 observed the following:
It is open for the teacher to seek suitable remedy for getting the salary for the period from 26.6.1969 to 31.5.1975 from the management
concerned since the Appellate authority has specially ordered that the management should pay the salary and allowances without any government
grant.
Therefore, he made representation to the Respondents including for his letters dated 28.8.1991 and 13.9.1991 requesting the payment of Rs.
21,201/- being the salary for the said period enclosing a working sheet also, but there was no reply.
The further averments of the writ petition is that the first Respondent is bound by the order of the appellate authority, the Chief Educational
Officer dated 3.12.1969; that the said order is deemed to be an order made under the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulations) Act,
1973 by virtue of Section 25(2) thereof and it is the responsibility of the second Respondent to see that the order is respected and implemented;
that since the school had been taken over by the educational authorities in 1970, it is the duty of the second Respondent to settle the arrears of
salary since non-payment of the same is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner would further contend that
he had retired from service and is suffering without financial wherewithal; that since it has also affected his source of livelihood, it is also violative of
the Constitution of India and with these and such other contentions, the Petitioner would pray for the relief as sought for in the writ petition.
To the above contentions of the Petitioner, no counter was filed on the part of the Respondents. But the learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondents would request to pass orders based on the arguments advanced on their part.
During arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the first Respondent would contend that the, school had been taken over by the second
Respondent in the year 1970 and handed over the same to Mettupalayam Municipality in the year 1971; that it was the Chief Educational Officer,
as per his order dated 3.12.1969, directed the first Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner immediately with intimation to the District Educational
Officer further informing that the period of absence of the Petitioner should be treated as on duty including for the payment of salary or any
government grant; that since the same was not acted upon, further directions were given as per the Director''s proceedings dated 14.9.1990
concluding that it is open for the teacher to seek suitable remedy for getting the salary for the period from 26.6.1969 to 31.5.1975 from the
management concerned since the appellate authority has specially ordered that the management should pay the salary and allowances without any
government grant.
The learned Counsel would further contend that it is not an appealable order and the management has to pay; that this order dated 14.9.1990
has not been communicated; that against the earlier order dated 3.12.1969 made by the Chief Educational Officer, an appeal had been preferred.
The learned Counsel would ultimately end up his argument contending that let not the school be directed to pay the amount even in the event of
allowing the plea of the Petitioner.
On the part of the second Respondent, the learned Government Advocate (Education) would contend that the Petitioner, at the relevant time
the salary is claimed, is deemed to have served continuously in the first Respondent management since it was the first Respondent who dismissed
him from service improperly on 14.8.1969 and hence, it is only the first Respondent/management inspite of the school having been taken over from
the management in the year 1970 and the Petitioner getting reinstated on 4.6.1975 by the order of the Director of School Education. Hence , the
learned Government Advocate would pray that it is the first Respondent who has to pay the said amount of salary as claimed by the Petitioner.
The Petitioner''s grievance is that while working as a teacher in a school of the first Respondent/management, on untenable grounds,
proceedings were initiated against him by the management and further holding him guilty of certain charges, he was dismissed from out of service
by the first Respondent. But his dismissal from service had been set aside by the Chief Educational Officer as per his order dated 3.12.1969 and
under some pretext or other since the first Respondent/management did not implement the order of the Chief Educational Officer and ultimately
orders have been passed by the authority concerned giving liberty to the Petitioner to initiate such measures for getting the salary for the period
from 26.6.1969 to 31.5.1975 to the management concerned since the appellate authority had specifically ordered that the management should pay
the salary and allowances without any government grant as per his order dated 14.9.1990. But, the first Respondent management did not come
forward to settle the said amount of Rs. 21.201/- that is claimed by the Petitioner.
I am given to understand that in the meantime, in the year 1970, the particular school in which the Petitioner employed as a teacher had been
taken over by the Government and handed over to Mettupalayam Municipality and thereafter, it is the Mettupalayam Municipality which was
managing the affairs of the school and that the reinstatement of the Petitioner with back wages had come into being as early as in the year 1970
itself as per the orders of the Chief Educational Officer dated 3.12.1969; that it is on account of the first Respondent management''s attitude in
spite of the said order having been passed to the effect of the first Respondent/managment to reinstate the Petitioner with back wages treating the
absence of the Petitioner as on duty and the salary and other government grant to be paid on such terms, the management did not come forward to
comply with, and all other developments have taken place as a result of which, ultimately the Petitioner had been left without his salary and other
emoluments being paid for the period between 26.6.1969 and 31.5.1975. The order of the Chief Educational Officer dated 3.12.1969 and the
Order of the Second Respondent dated 14.9.1990 are specific to the effect that it is the first Respondent/management who has to effect the
payment as claimed by the Petitioner and since these orders are unchallenged, they hold good and it is high time that the first
Respondent/management is directed to effect the payment in favour of the Petitioner who having retired from service is in distress.
For the above reasons, it is not only hereby concluded that it is the first Respondent-management which according to the appellate authority
himself was responsible for having not only dismissed the Petitioner on flimsy and untenable charges but also gave way for further delay of more
than five years to occur in spite of the first Respondent having been ordered to reinstate the Petitioner as early as in 1969 itself. Therefore, this
Court is of the firm view that it is the first Respondent-management which has to pay the amount claimed towards the salary payable for the period
between 26.6.1969 and 31.5.1975 in favour of the Petitioner.
Secondly, it is long since the amount has become due and to have been paid to the Petitioner and, therefore, the first Respondent/management
is hereby directed to pay the said amount of Rs. 21,201/- with a reasonable interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date that it became payable
till the date of payment.
Thirdly, the first Respondent/management is further directed to remit the said amount with interest at 6 per cent per annum within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of this order or from the date of presentment of this order.
In terms of the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected WMP, is closed. No costs. VCJ/CH/VCS.