Madras High Court
The Correspondent vs Anuradha on 27 January, 2021
A.S.No.251 of 1993
& C.M.P.Nos.4677, 9235 of 1993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date: 27.01.2021
Coram::
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
A.S.No.251 of 1993
& C.M.P.Nos.4677 & 9235 of 1993
The Correspondent,
Singaram Pillai Girls Higher Secondary School,
Villivakkam, Madras – 49. ... Appellant
/versus/
Anuradha,
W/o.P.Balasubramanian,
M/46-E, 2nd Floor SMIG Flats,
Periyar Nagar,
Madras – 600 080. ... Respondent
Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure
Code, against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.3857 of 1987 dated
28.09.1992 on the file of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.
For Appellant : No appearance
For Respondent : Mr.B.Dinesh Kumar,
for Mr.V.Manisekaran
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.251 of 1993
& C.M.P.Nos.4677, 9235 of 1993
JUDGMENT
This Appeal suit is filed by the Correspondent of a Private School being
aggrieved by the money decree passed against the school Management by the Trial
Court.
2. The brief facts of the case necessary for deciding this Appeal is as
follows:-
One B.Anuradha wife of P.Balasubramaniam was employed as a Clerk
in the Appellant School during the month of October 1967. Her service was
governed by Tamil Nadu Private School Regulation Act and Rules. When there was
change of Correspondent to the school, the new correspondent with ulterior motive
to appoint his own relatives, started harassing the staff members making false
allegation against them. The plaintiff Anuradha, was charged for furnishing false
entry regarding community of the students. In spite of proper explanation, she was
terminated from service without affording proper opportunity. The said termination
order was challenged as arbitrary and illegal before the statutory authority, who is the
2nd defendant.
(ii). The Appeal preferred against the illegal termination was allowed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.251 of 1993
& C.M.P.Nos.4677, 9235 of 1993
the 2nd defendant vide order dated 26.10.1982 with a direction to the Management to
reinstate the plaintiff with backwages and continuity of service. In spite of order
passed by the Appellate Authority, same was not given effect by the Management,
but they preferred W.P.No.5609 of 1983 before the High Court challenging the order
passed by the Appellate Authority and obtained exparte stay. Then the plaintiff filed
separate W.P.No.12842 of 1984 for implementation of the reinstatement order passed
by the 2nd defendant. The said writ petition was allowed directing the 2 & 3
defendants namely Joint Director of School Education and State of Tamil Nadu
represented by Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Education Department.
To post her in any other institute. Accordingly she was employed in a different
school on 05.06.1985. However, her pay and allowance during the period of
suspension, till reinstatement was not paid. Hence, representation was given to pay
the arrears. The Management failed to pay the arrears for the period she was illegally
put under suspension. Hence, after issuing notice under Section 80 of C.P.C, the suit
for recovery of Rs.47,772/- with 18 % interest was laid. The statement of account for
the said amount was annexed with the plaint.
3. The 1st Appellant in their written statement contested the suit stating
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.251 of 1993
& C.M.P.Nos.4677, 9235 of 1993
that the plaintiff was charged for changing the caste name of the students with
ulterior motive. When same came to the notice of the management, she was asked to
show cause why action should not be taken for her grave mis-conduct. Her
explanation was not satisfactory so, she was placed under suspension. After
conducting enquiry, she was terminated her from service, as per Tamil Nadu Private
School Regulation following the principle of natural justice. However, in the appeal
preferred by the plaintiff, the 2nd dependant without proper appreciation of the facts
and the illegality committed by the plaintiff, set aside the dismissal order and issued
direction to reinstate her from service. In any event based on work no pay principle
for the suspension period, till the reinstatement, the plaintiff is not entitled for
backwages. She had been provided posting in other institute following
G.O.Ms.No.1664/1978 therefore, there is nothing for the plaintiff to claim.
4. In the additional written statement filed by the 1st defendant, plea of
limitation was raised. It was contended that the plaintiff was suspended from service
on 29.01.1981 and same was setaside by the 2nd defendant Appellate Authority on
28.10.1982. The stay granted in the Writ Petition filed by the Management was in
force only upto 07.07.1983. The limitation period for recovery of money is 3 years,
therefore, the suit ought to have been filed on or before 06.07.1986. Whereas, the
plaint was presented only on 28.04.1987 therefore, the suit is hopelessly barred by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.251 of 1993
& C.M.P.Nos.4677, 9235 of 1993
limitation.
5. In the written statement filed by the 2nd respondent, the liability to pay
the suit amount was denied and it was contended that having found that the plaintiff
was terminated illegality without proper opportunity, the termination order has been
duly setaside and same is under challenged by way of Writ Petition filed by the
Management. Therefore, the money suit for recovery of backwages is pre-matured.
6. The Trial Court, on considering the pleadings framed the following
issues and additional issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the sum of Rs.47,712/- or
any other sum against the first defendant or the other defendants?
2. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of first defendant?
3. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?
4. To what other reliefs the parties are entitled to?
Additional Issues:-
1. Whether the first defendant has to pay the plaintiff as per G.O. Passed
in G.O.Ms.No.1664/1978?
2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.251 of 1993
& C.M.P.Nos.4677, 9235 of 1993
7. Before the Trial Court, one witness on behalf of the plaintiff and one
witness on behalf of the defendant were examined. 28 Exhibits were marked in
support of the plaint and one Exhibit was marked on behalf of the defendant.
8. The Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, allowed the suit passed
by the Trial Court directing the defendants 1 to 3 to pay the plaintiff a sum of
Rs.47,772/- with 18% interest from the date of plaint till the date of realisation.
9. The Management has preferred the present appeal on the ground that
the Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts properly. The Appellant being a non-
fees levying School running with the aid of the State cannot be jointly and severally
held liable to pay the staff members. The Appellant is only a dispersing Authority.
Hence, Trial Court should have dismissed the suit as against the appellant. As far as
the conduct of the plaintiff, stating that she has altered the community certificate of
the students illegally and when the said misconduct came to light, appropriate
charges were framed and enquiry was conducted in accordance with law. Having
found that she has committed serious misconduct, termination order was issued.
During the suspension period, till the reinstatement period, the Management is not
under the legal obligation to pay the salary. If at all she is entitled for any backwages
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.251 of 1993
& C.M.P.Nos.4677, 9235 of 1993
and attender charges, it is the other defendants namely Joint Director of School
Education and the State alone is liable. Under the Regulation Act, it is suffice to
intimate the Authorities about the termination of the staff paid under the grant.
Furthermore, there is no obligation on the part of the management. While so,
holding the management for backwages is not in consonance with law. Therefore, the
Trial Court ought to have exonerated the management. The statement furnished by
the plaintiff is annexed to the plaint is not substantiated by any evidence. The self
serving statement ought not to have been relied by the Trial Court.
10. On considering the pleadings, this Court formulated the following
point for determination:-
(i). Whether the Appellant is entitled for any exoneration from liability?
(ii). Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(iii). Whether the pendency of Writ Petition will save the limitation?
11. The specific case of the plaintiff is that she was appointed in the
Appellant School in the year 1967. The new correspondent in order to replace them
with his own relative, frivolous charges were framed against the staff as one of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.251 of 1993
& C.M.P.Nos.4677, 9235 of 1993
victim, is the plaintiff. The specific charge against her was that, she has altered the
caste of some people. The enquiry conducted by the Management leading to
termination of service found to be illegal and the Statutory Authority ordered
reinstatement with backwages. Against this order the Appellant herein has not
preferred any further Appeal before the Tribunal constituted under the Tamil Nadu
Private School Regulation Act, instead, they filed a writ petition before the High
Court and obtained an interim order. The plaintiff was forced to file a Writ Petition
for implementation of reinstatement order passed by the 2nd defendant. Pursuant to
the order passed in her writ petition, the defendants 2 & 3 had provided her
appointment in an alternate School. The order of reinstatement passed by the 2nd
defendant has come to a logical end after dismissal of the writ petition filed by the
Management. When there is no further appeal reversing the reinstatement order,
mere reinstatement of the plaintiff in a different school without payment of arrears is
only partial compliance of the order. The backwages during the period of suspension
till reinstatement ought to be paid. Whether the liability to pay should be fastened on
all the defendants as ordered by the Trial Court are only against the Management is
the point to be decided.
12. The evidence placed before this Court clearly shows that the
termination order passed by the Appellant herein is without affording fair
opportunity. Same has been held to be illegal and set-aside by the 2nd defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.251 of 1993
& C.M.P.Nos.4677, 9235 of 1993
Despite the order of reinstatement, the said order was not obeyed only pursuant to the
order passed by this Court in a writ petition filed by the plaintiff, the defendants 2 &
3 has provided her alternate appointment. There cannot be any liability fastened on
the defendants 2 & 3 for paying the backwages. If the Management has complied the
order passed by the 2nd defendant by reinstating her in their own institute, the stand
taken by the Appellant herein that they are not liable to pay the arrears may carry
some merit. When they have totally disobeyed the order of the 2nd defendant, despite
the order of reinstatement, the liability to pay the plaintiff for the period of non-
service become the personal liability of the Management which has mal-administer
its affairs with ulterior motive defying the principle of natural justice. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that the decree passed by this Court as against all the defendants
ought to be restricted only against the 1st defendant, who is the appellant herein.
13. The defendants 2 & 3 has preferred a separate appeal challenging
the order of the Trial Court fastening liability on them jointly and severally.
14. The Learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submitted
that in the order passed by this Court in C.M.P.Nos.4677, 9235 and 9840 of 1993
dated 25.08.1993, the appellant was directed to deposit 50% of the decree amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.251 of 1993
& C.M.P.Nos.4677, 9235 of 1993
together with costs and out of it 50% was permitted to be withdrawn. Accordingly,
the plaintiff/1st respondent withdrew 50%. Thereafter, Letter Patent Appeal LPA.
No.216 of 1995 was filed before the Division Bench by the plaintiff/respondent,
wherein, the Division Bench has directed the appellant to deposit the remaining 50%
of the decretal amount in Tamil Nadu State Co-operative Bank with direction the
accrued interest shall be paid to the appellant, pending First Appeal. Further, the
respondent was also permitted to withdraw the balance 50% of the amount already
deposited by the appellant in pursuant to the order in C.M.P.Nos. 4677, 9235 and
9840 of 1993. In such circumstances, The Appeal is dismissed. The respondent
herein is permitted to withdraw the money lying in the deposit on filing proper
application.
15. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. With costs.
27.01.2021
bsm
Index :Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order.
To:-
1.The II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.251 of 1993
& C.M.P.Nos.4677, 9235 of 1993
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.251 of 1993
& C.M.P.Nos.4677, 9235 of 1993
Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.
bsm
A.S.No.251 of 1993
27.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
