AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shylendra Kumar, J.—Sri Bhavani Shankar, learned counsel for the complainants seeks permission of the court to delete the names of accused Nos. 2 and 3. Permitted. Necessary correction to be carried out in the cause title.
Heard on the merits of the matter.
Learned counsel for the complainants submits that in spite of clear direction in terms of the order dated 18.4.2011 passed in W.P.No.24555/2005 (S) though at the instance of the management and this court had issued a clear direction to the accused person to settle the pensionary benefits of the complainants etc., in the wake of slight modification of the order which reads as follows:-
Insofar as the merits of the case is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents would seek to contest the same. However, he does not dispute the second portion of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the institution having been closed and the office-bearers as well as the teachers having attained the age of superannuation and therefore, there is not impediment for the respondents at this point of time to raise a claim for pension, provided that they have the qualifying service required for making such a claim and they would be entitled for such pension depending on their service including continuity of service between the period 1.6.1996 till the date they attained superanauation.
With that observation, the petition stands disposed of The fifth respondent is directed to consider the claim of the respondents, if and when any such claims are made for pension in accordance with law. To the above extent, the order of the Tribunal stands modified having regard to the subsequent events
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would seek to dispute the position of law as sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and seeks to replace reliance on a later judgment of this court in Sri N. Dasegowda Vs. The Secretary, Dr. Ambedkar Education Society (R), It is not necessary to enter upon that controversy having regard to the subsequent events.
A perusal of this order indicates that while there is some direction to the 5th respondent therein, it is not t the instance of the complainants nor the complainants had preferred the writ petition. Complainants only figured as respondents in the writ petition.
Submission of the learned counsel for the complainants is that management has not taken any action and therefore, they had been arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the Deputy Director of Public Instructions - the first accused. While we are not compelled to express any view on this aspect, we are very disinclined to entertain a matter of this nature, when the complainants were not the writ petitioners before this court and the order of the Tribunal, in fact came to be modified by this court to some extent. Therefore, while we dismiss these contempt petitions, it t, open to the complainants to work out their rights and remedies elsewhere in accordance with law.