AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AR. Lakshmanan, J.—On 2-11-1995 in W.P. No. 14995 of 1992, I passed the following order:
It appears that the petitioner has now retired from service on 31-5-1995 after the completion of 60 years. Since the petitioner has completed 60
years, there is nothing farther survives in the writ petition to be adjudicated upon by this Court. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. During the
tendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has made further representation to the respondents 1 and 2 on 3-8-1995 claiming full salary with
increments and all other benefits, namely, earned leave encashment, medical leave allowance, etc., etc., after the 58th year till the end of the
academic year, i.e., 31-5-1995. It is contended by the petitioner that he is legally entitled to the benefits claimed in his representation dated 3-8-
1995. The respondents 1 and 2 are therefore directed to consider her representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after
giving opportunity to the petitioner. The representation shall be disposed of by the respondents 1 and 2 within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
It is stated by the applicant that the carbon copy of the order was dispatched to the respondents on 4.12.1995. The applicant sent a reminder
representation to respondents 1 and 2 on 20-11-1995. Since no order has been passed till 8-4-1996, a lawyer notice was sent by the applicant to
the respondents enclosing a Xerox copy of the order in W.P. No. 14995 of 1992, Xerox copy of the original representation dated 3-8-1995 and
Xerox copy of the representation dated 20-11-1995. Though the three month period granted by this Court expired by 2-2-1996, the respondents
have not passed any order as directed in the writ petition. It is also the grievance of the applicant that she has not received the salary due after the
completion of her 58th year till she retired and relieved from service after attaining 60th year, i.e., 31-5-1995, and pension thereafter. Therefore, it
is contended by the applicant that the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not disposing of the representation of the applicant is deliberate and wilful
and as such, respondents 1 and 2 are liable to be punished for their wilful and deliberate disobedience and defiance of the order passed by this
Court on 2.11.1995 in W.P. No. 14995 of 1992.
The Contempt Application was admitted by this Court on 29-8-1996 and notice was ordered to the respondents. On 26-9-1996, the 1st
respondent (G. Ranganathan) and the 2nd respondent (S. Chelladurai) were present in Court. Their appearance for the future hearings was
dispensed with until further orders.
The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that pursuant to the Court direction, he issued notice to the applicant in his Proceedings Rc.
No. 27370/Dl/95 dated 13-9-1996 directing the applicant to show cause as to why the request cannot be negatived. Since there is no reply from
the applicant, final order has been passed by his proceedings dated 25-9-1996 rejecting the request of the applicant after considering her claim as
per the directions of this Court. It is also stated that the time limit prescribed by this Court could not be observed due to the non-co-operation of
the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent has also tendered an unconditional apology for the delay in complying with the order of this Court. It is
stated that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the reasons stated in the affidavit. It is stated in para 10 of the counter affidavit that the
1st respondent has the greatest respect for this Court and regards for this Court''s order and that he has no slightest intention to disobey the orders
of this Court. He therefore, requests that the unconditional apology for the delay caused in complying with the order of this Court may be accepted
and the Contempt Application be closed.
The 3rd respondent/school management filed a separate counter affidavit denying the allegations of the 1st respondent that in spite of their
several requests since 30-9-1995, the Correspondent and the Headmaster did not send the applicant''s Service Register to the District Educational
Officer. It is stated that as soon as they received the Service Register, the same was sent to the 2nd respondent on 24-5-1996 and the receipt of
the same was acknowledged by the 2nd respondent only on 7-6-1996. The management could get a copy of the representation of the applicant
dated 3-8-1995 from her only on 14-6-1996 and the same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent on the same day. Therefore it is submitted by
the 3rd respondent that there was no delay nor inaction on the part of the management as alleged by the 1st respondent.
The applicant has also filed a reply affidavit.
As already seen, the writ petition was filed by the applicant for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to relieve the
applicant from service till she attains the age of 60 years and also till the end of that school year with increment and all other benefits. On 31-5-
1995, the applicant was relieved from service on attaining 60 years at the end of the school year. It is the grievance of the applicant that salary was
not paid for two years after the completion of 58th year since the writ petition was pending. It is also the case of the applicant that in the meantime,
many teachers including part-time teachers filed writ petitions and got all the benefits. Since there was delay in disposal of the writ petition, the
applicant sent a representation to respondents 1 and 2 claiming salary for the period after 58th year till she attained 60th year and thereafter also till
the end of the school year on 31-5-1995, with all benefits as ordered by this Court in District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai v. Rajamma 1992
(I) M.L.J., 218.
The applicant filed W.M.P. No. 23082 of 1995 to direct respondents 1 and 2 to dispose of her representation dated 3-8-1995 claiming full
salary with increments and all other benefits after the 58th year till 31-5-1995 as ordered by this Court in the above cited decision. When the writ
petition was taken up, it was represented by the learned Govt. Pleader that since the applicant has completed 60 years and served till the end of
the academic year i.e., 31-5-1995, nothing survived in the writ petition. This Court disposed of the writ petition and directed respondents 1 and 2
to pass orders on the representation of the applicant dated 3-8-1995 after giving opportunity to the applicant within three months. The applicant
made a reminder on 20-11-1995 enclosing the representation dated 3-8-1995. she also sent a lawyer''s notice on 8-4-1996. Since there was no
response from the respondents, the applicant filed the present Contempt Application, which was admitted by this Court on 29-8-1996. In the
meanwhile, the 1st respondent sent a letter to the applicant on 13-6-1996 stating that on 1-11-1956 she was in temporary service and was
confirmed only in 1961 and therefore, issued a show cause notice as to why her claim for salary and other benefits should not be rejected. The
applicant sent a reply on 17-9-1996 inviting the respondents'' attention to her detailed representation dated 20-11-1995. In the reply it was
pointed out by the applicant that the only condition in the Government Order was the teacher concerned would have been in service on the crucial
date i.e., 1.11.1956 and continued in service thereafter and that there is no further requirement that the service on the crucial date must be
permanent. She requested the authorities to pass orders after giving opportunity to her. She also invited the attention of the respondents to the
relevant Rules which were also quoted to prove that no training qualification was required for appointment under Rule 6. She also quoted Rule
8(2) which says that temporary appointments (were made) only on temporary posts, and that the post which the applicant held was not temporary.
However, on 25-9-1996, the 1st respondent passed final orders stating that the applicant was not in regular service on 31-10-1956 and hence not
entitled to full pay and increments.
In my opinion, the order passed by the 1st respondent on 25-9-1996 is wholly illegal and without application of mind. This Court while
disposing of the writ petition has issued a specific direction to respondents 1 and 2 to pass orders on the representation of the applicant dated 3-8-
1995 after giving opportunity to the applicant within three months. The 1st respondent has passed the order without affording an opportunity to the
applicant. This apart, the 1st respondent has also not considered the detailed representation of the applicant sent on 20-11-1995 and 17-9-1996.
It is also brought to my notice that in similar matters, the Director of School Education has passed orders releasing the arrears immediately in his
Proceedings No. 42503/D/95 dated 5-8-1996. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in W.P. No. 12953 of 1989, this
Court by order dated 19-3-1991, wherein the petitioner joined service as a part-time teacher on 2-7-1956, who subsequently became a full time
teacher, given the benefit of the Govt. Order to the petitioner therein.
In my opinion, the 1st respondent without applying his mind to the specific directions issued by this Court, has passed the order on 25-9-1996.
It is not proper for persons like the 1st respondent to indulge in hair-splitting approach and find an escape for defeating the rights of the applicant.
It is settled law that a Court of justice should, if it could, adjudicate finally and not leave the door ajar for parties to litigate again. In is high time the
Government and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating the legitimate claims of
citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens.
It is well settled that the inherent powers of this Court u/s 151 of the CPC are wide and are not subject to any limitation. Where, in violation of
any order passed by this Court, something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the Court as a policy to set the wrong right and not
allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. The inherent power will not only be available in such cases but it is bound to be exercised in the manner
in the interest of justice. In the instant case, since the 1st respondent has in utter violation of my order dated 2-11-1995, passed an order behind
the back of the applicant, the applicant has been affected because of that order in spite of her sending detailed reply, etc. Therefore, the applicant
has to approach this Court and ask for the relief that the order passed by the 1st respondent would be destructive of her stand-point and this
Court, on a consideration of the entire circumstances and facts, will have to put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to the
passing of the order by the 1st respondent. Hence, the applicant is put back in the same position as she stood immediately prior to the passing of
the order by the 1st respondent on 25.9.1996.
It is admitted by the parties that as a result of this Court''s order, the applicant continued to work as a teacher and retired on her attaining the
60th year and till the end of the academic year. Having served the institution from 1956 onwards, it would be unjust to make her not to enjoy the
benefits of the service viz., her entitlement of salary, etc., for the period she worked. It is also not in dispute that the 1st respondent passed the
order without giving the applicant any opportunity to explain the correct position. The 1st respondent has not considered the vital contention of the
applicant that the right is claimed by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 1069, Education, dated 14-7-1987, as interpreted by this Court in the decision
reported in 1992 (I) M.L.J., 218.
The applicant joined the service on 2-7-1956, i.e., before the States Reorganisation, and continued in service thereafter in Tamil Nadu. It is
her claim that she is legally eligible for full salary with increments and other attendant benefits till her retirement on attaining 60 years and also till the
end of that school year. As stated in the Contempt Application, the applicant, in fact, continued to serve after her attaining 58 years till the 60th
year and upto the end of that academic year in pursuance of the interim orders granted by this Court in W.M.P. No. 21349 of 1992 in W.P. No.
14995 of 1992.
G.O.Ms. No. 1069, Education, dated 14-7-1987, under which right is claimed by the applicant, specifies that all teachers who were in service
in non-government schools by the transferred territories on the crucial date of 31-10-1956 and continued to serve in Tamil Nadu thereafter would
be governed by the Private Secondary School Scheme and their age of retirement would be 60 and they would be eligible for all concessions
periodically extended to the teachers in Tamil Nadu. There is no stipulation in that Government Order that service must be on permanent basis on
1-11-1956 to claim the benefits under the Private Secondary School Scheme, as viewed by respondents 1 and 2. This apart, the applicant
continued to serve till her attaining 60 years on the basis of the orders of this Court and therefore, she is eligible for full salary and other benefits
during that period.
For the foregoing reasons, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the whole matter afresh in a proper perspective and after affording a
personal hearing to the applicant or her counsel, and pass appropriate orders in regard to her claim for salary and other benefits. The 1st
respondent is further directed to consider the matter on merits and pass orders within six weeks from today. In the meanwhile, respondents 1 and
2 shall pay the applicant the undisputed salary and other benefits, if any. In the result, the unconditional apology tendered by the respondents is
accepted and taking a lenient view of the matter, the Contempt application is closed subject to the direction given above. No costs.