Madras High Court
M.P.Jagadeeswari vs The Director Of School Education on 3 February, 2021
1 W.P.No.31318 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P.No.31318 of 2014
M.P.Jagadeeswari .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director of School Education,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Chennai North, Chennai – 8.
3. The Correspondent,
Singaram Pillai Higher Secondary School,
Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Mandamus, directing to the respondent to release the salary and
other attended benefits for the service extension period (01.12.2011 to
31.05.2012) and to sanction the pension and release the overdue pension
amount immediately.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathiyanarayanan
For Respondents1&2 : Mr.Sureshkumar
For Respondent – 3 : Mr.D.Magesh Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 W.P.No.31318 of 2014
ORDER
According to the petitioner, she belongs to Backward community and
was appointed as B.T Assistant on 01.08.1986 in the third respondent
school, since no candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste community was
not available. Subsequently, the Employment Exchange sponsored the name
of one N.Karunanidhi, who belonged to Scheduled Caste and he was
appointed by the Management on 08.08.1987 against the vacancy reserved
for the SC candidate. In view of the same, the second respondent raised an
objection against the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that if
there are two vacancies, one appointment should be given to the Scheduled
Caste candidate and another to Backward Community candidate and
ultimately refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner vide
O.Mu.No.5616/A4/1989 dated 31.08.1989, which was also confirmed by
the first respondent vide proceedings in O.Mu.No.201402/D3/89 dated
12.12.1989. Consequently, she was terminated from service. However, as
per the judgment of this Court in WA.Nos.347 and 348 of 1998 dated
08.12.2005, the petitioner was reinstated in service as B.T Assistant (Maths)
with effect from 05.01.2006 and she joined duty on that day itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2.It is the further case of the petitioner that contrary to the judgment
passed in the writ appeals, in the communication dated 23.08.2006,
addressed to the third respondent by the second respondent, on the basis of
which, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 05.01.2006, the
appointment of the petitioner was approved as if a fresh entrant on
consolidated monthly pay of Rs.4,000/- from 05.01.2006 and be placed in
regular time scale of pay of Rs.5500-175-9000 from 01.06.2006.
Accordingly, her pay was fixed at Rs.5500/- as per G.O.Ms.No.99, School
Education Department, dated 27.06.2006. Further, the second respondent
did not release the pending salary payable to the petitioner as per the order
of the Division Bench dated 08.12.2005 passed in WA.Nos.347 and 348 of
1998. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 22.09.2006
requesting to release her salary for the period form 04.08.1986 to
13.11.1997 and arrears of pay and allowances for the period from
05.01.2006 to 31.08.2006 and fix her pay as on 05.01.2006 with notional
increments. Since the said representation was not considered, the petitioner
filed WP.No.48712 of 2006, which was disposed of on 15.12.2006,
directing the second respondent to consider the said representation within a
period of eight weeks. Despite the said order of this Court, the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
respondent rejected the said representation vide order dated 06.03.2007. The
said order was challenged in WP.No.19892 of 2007, which was dismissed
on 19.08.2011. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred a writ
appeal, which is pending.
3.The petitioner also stated in the writ petition that on reaching the
age of superannuation, he retired from service on 30.11.2011 as Assistant
Headmaster (BT) of the third respondent School. Subsequently, her service
was extended for the remaining academic year i.e., from 01.12.2011 to
31.05.2012. Accordingly, she discharged her service. However, she was not
paid salary and other attendant benefits for the said extension of service.
That apart, she did not receive any pension, though the third respondent
forwarded her proposal on 18.11.2013. Hence, the petitioner submitted a
representation dated 25.02.2014 to the first respondent, requesting to release
the salary and other attended benefits for the extension of service and
sanction pension etc. Finding no response on the same, the petitioner has
come up with this writ petition seeking appropriate direction to the first
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4.Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice, if the
representation of the petitioner dated 25.02.2014 is directed to be
considered by the first respondent, for which the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents has no serious objection.
5.Considering the nature of the relief sought herein, this Court,
without going into the merits of the case, directs the first respondent to
consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.02.2014, if not already
considered, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law and also in
the light of the recommendation of the third respondent dated 15.09.2014,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
6.Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
03.02.2021
msv
Index: Yes/ No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
msv
To
1. The Director of School Education,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Chennai North, Chennai – 8.
3. The Correspondent,
Singaram Pillai Higher Secondary School,
Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049.
W.P.No.31318 of 2014
03.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
