G.Satyanarayana vs St.Georges Grammer School
2022 Latest Caselaw 1136 Tel

              HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                       C.C.C.A.No.109 of 2014

                            JUDGMENT

1. G.Satyanarayana, a retired Telugu Pandit, plaintiff-appellant

herein, filed this appeal against St. George's Grammer School,

Abids, Hyderabad, represented by its Warden-cum-Correspondent,

defendant-respondent herein, against the judgment and decree

dated 23.01.2012 passed in O.S.No.899 of 2008 on the file of the

learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby

the Court below dismissed the suit filed for various reliefs.

2. The plaintiff would contend that the defendant admitted that

his appointment was in accordance with the A.P. Government

Rules, but failed to apply the same throughout his tenure and has

not complied with the orders of the Court in I.A.No.87 of 2010. But

the Court below has not taken any adverse inference against the

defendant and his evidence was unrebutted. The proceedings

issued by the defendant shows that it is following A.P. Rules, but

the same was not considered by the Court below and requested to

set aside the same.

3. O.S.No.899 of 2008 is filed by the plaintiff seeking

declaration that his last pay is Rs.17,475/-, recovery of

Rs.39,265/- towards the difference in pension and dearness relief,

recovery of Rs.2,19,150/- towards difference in gratuity, recovery

of Rs.2,88,132/- towards arrears of pay and allowance and for

recovery of Rs.1,07,917/- towards encashment of leave salary. He

joined in service as a Teacher on 01.04.1977 in the pay scale of

Rs.250-430 plus allowance admissible under A.P. Government

Rules and after completing 30 years of service, he retired on

30.09.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. He would

further submit that he is entitled for the pay from time to time as

per the revised rules and also for difference in HRA, CCA and leave

salary admissible as per the orders of the A.P. Government, but

the defendant failed to follow the Rules from 01.04.1999 and it

resulted in monetary loss of Rs.2,88,130/- to the plaintiff. He

would further state that A.P. Government in its order in G.O.(P)

No.114, Finance and Planning (F.W. PC-I) Department, dated

11.08.1999 revised the pay scale with effect from 01.07.1998 with

monetary benefit from 01.04.1999 and the School Management

implemented the same from 01.04.2003 and paid arrears of seven

(7) months from September, 2000 to March, 2001 and failed to

implement the rates of dearness allowance as per the orders of the

State Government and the defendant also failed to implement the

revised pay scale as per G.O.(P) No.213, Finance and Planning

(P.C.-I) Department, dated 27.08.2005. He would also assert that

as per the proceedings dated 17.10.2007, his sanctioned pension

was Rs.6,050/- per month on the basis of last drawn pay of

Rs.12,100/- per month. In fact, it should be Rs.8,738/- as last

drawn pay of Rs.17,475/-. He would also assert that as per

G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 30.01.1999 gratuity calculations were

changed in respect of the employees retired on or before

20.01.1999 and as per G.O.Ms.No.249 dated 04.10.2005 the

maximum limit of retirement gratuity under Rule 46 of A.P.

Revised Pension Rules, 1980 is Rs.3,50,000/-, and therefore he is

entitled for Rs.17,590/- towards arrears of pension. As the

defendant failed to pay the entitled amounts, the plaintiff got

issued a legal notice to the defendant on 03.03.2008 but it was

returned with an endorsement 'defendant away from station'.

Therefore, he again sent another notice by courier but it was

returned with an endorsement 'refused' and as such he filed the

present seeking recovery of the amounts as stated above.

4. The defendant in its written statement would contend that

the plaintiff accepted the pay as revised by the management

without any grievance either in April, 1999 or in August, 2005.

The defendant admitted the appointment of the plaintiff in the

scale of 250-430 plus allowances as admissible under A.P.

Government Rules but stated that the Rules framed by the A.P.

Government for the Teachers working in the Government

Institutions and Aided Institutions are not applicable to it as it is

not recognized by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and it is

recognized by the ICSC, New Delhi. The defendant is an unaided

institution and the management has to pay salaries out of its own

funds and thus it has prerogative to fix the salaries of the staff

working in it and the plaintiff is not entitled for D.A., HRA., CCA,

and leave salary as claimed by him. The defendant would further

assert that the plaintiff while in service received the salary without

any protest and after retirement filed this suit with a mala fide

intention.

5. In support of his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as

P.W.1 and also examined his co-teacher who worked along with

him as P.W.2 and marked exhibits A.1 to A.9 on his behalf. The

correspondent of the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and

marked Exs.B.1 and B.2. The Court below after considering the

entire evidence on record dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved

by the said judgment and decree the plaintiff preferred this appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

defendant.

7. P.W.1 filed detailed chief affidavit along with the documents

and during the cross-examination he deposed that he joined in

service on 30.04.1977. His probation was confirmed in the year

1979 and he was appointed on the aided post. He also admitted

that he did not make any protest in writing when he received

retirement benefits. When he was directed to be retired

prematurely on 31.05.2006, though his due date of retirement was

30.09.2007, he filed O.S.No.867 of 2006 on the file of I Senior Civil

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for quashing the order and

obtained temporary injunction restraining the defendant from

retiring him and as such he retired only after attaining the age of

superannuation.

8. P.W.2 was working as Teacher in the same school from the

past 12 years and he deposed that P.W.1 was his colleague and in

service from September, 2007. He also worked as Honorary

President of the School Teachers Association and he took active

part. The defendant-management retired the plaintiff one year

prior to the age of superannuation and as such he filed suit being

O.S.No.867 of 2006 and continued in service till the date of

original retirement 30.07.2007. He further deposed that according

to the order of appointment of P.W.1 he is entitled to his pay and

allowance as per the orders of the Government issued from time to

time. The Government Orders mentioned supra would apply to the

plaintiff and other teachers also but the defendant-management

did not apply the same to P.W.1. He also added that the

defendant-management of the school sent a Circular dated

15.10.2003 to the parents of the students asserting that the

defendant-management was paying pay scales and allowances to

the teachers as per the Government Orders. He also deposed that

P.W.1 filed a petition to summon the records of pay and

acquittance registers and service books pertaining to four (4)

teachers to establish that they were all paid salaries and

allowances as per the Government Orders concerning the revision

of pay scales, but the defendant-management deliberately failed to

produce the records.

9. The Correspondent of the defendant-management was

examined as D.W.1 and deposed that the defendant-management

has not revised the pay of the plaintiff as per the Government

Orders issued from time to time ie., 01.04.1999, 11.08.1999 and

27.08.2005 to which he has not made any grievance either in

April, 1999 or in August, 2005 and thus his claim is barred by

limitation. He also deposed that the defendant institution is an

unaided minority institution. The pay scales were fixed by the

educational committee of the institution. If the individual is

aggrieved by the fixation of pay, he should approach the education

committee and thereafter the defendant management for redressal

of the same. The plaintiff retired from service in the year 2007 and

filed this suit on 28.03.2008. He further deposed that the

emoluments paid higher than that of the plaintiff to another staff

member would not give leverage to the plaintiff to make claim

belatedly one year after his retirement. He specifically deposed

that the Government Orders on which the plaintiff relied upon are

not applicable to the defendant-management.

10. In the cross examination he deposed that he has been

working as Warden and Correspondent of the defendant-

management from 03.03.2010 and he do not know about

premature retirement of the plaintiff on 31.05.2006 instead of

30.09.2007 and also regarding filing of the suit O.S.No.867 of

2006. He admitted that their school is recognized school. He do

not know whether pension was fixed by applying Government

Scales in cases of Papaiah Sastry, Jayakar Premanth,

Chidambaram and Satya Raj. It was suggested that the teacher's

association represented the defendant-management for several

times regarding applying of Government scales but it was not

considered by the management.

11. By order dated 22.03.1977 of the defendant-management

the plaintiff was appointed on 01.04.1977 as a Telugu Teacher in

pay scale 250-10-430 on an initial basic pay of Rs.250/- plus

usual allowances admissible under A.P. Government Rules. He

was promoted as Grade I Pandit on 17.12.1980 with a basic pay of

Rs.575/- from 01.12.1980.

12. The defendant-management would assert that it was not

under the control of the A.P. Government but it is under the

control of ICSC, New Delhi, and as such it is not bound by the

orders issued by the A.P. Government, regarding fixation of pay

and other allowances to the employees. But in the appointment

order it was specifically mentioned that the employee is entitled for

usual allowances admissible under the A.P. Government Rules.

The defendant-management has not filed any document to show

that it is working under the ICSC, New Delhi, and exempted from

the Government Orders of the A.P. regarding pay fixation. P.W.1 in

his evidence and also in his legal notice clearly stated that the

school management implemented the orders of the Government

from 01.04.2003 and paid arrears for seven (07) months from

September 2000 to March, 2001 and it failed to follow the rules

that are in vogue from time to time, and therefore, it is clear that

the defendant-management obliged the orders of the Government

for a certain period and now it cannot advocate that the said

orders are not binding on it. P.W.2 in his evidence clearly stated

that the Government Orders mentioned by P.W.1 were applied to

him and other teachers but they were not applied to P.W.1. It is

also on record that P.W.1 was retired one year prior to the

superannuation and again continued in service only as per the

orders of the Court and this clearly shows that the defendant

management has some grievance against the plaintiff and thus, it

deprived him all the legitimate benefits willfully, though the same

were extended to P.W.2 and other teachers. D.W.1 in his evidence

specifically stated that he do not known whether pension was fixed

by applying Government scales in cases of Papaiah Sastry,

Jayakar Premanth, Chidambaram and Satya Raj. Though P.W.1

filed I.A. in the suit to call for the service records and acquittance

registers of the concerned teachers, it was allowed by the Court,

the defendant management did not file the same deliberately and

thus it gives strength to the version of P.W.2 who stated that the

said Government Orders were applied to him and other teachers

but not to P.W.1. P.W.2 also stated that in a Circular dated

15.10.2003 the defendant-management claimed that it is paying

the pay scales as per the Government Orders.

13. The defendant-management mainly contend that the

plaintiff received the salaries during his tenure and he has not

raised any objection and revised salaried were not paid to him in

the years 1999 and 2005 but filed the suit after his retirement.

But, they themselves admitted that merely because the amounts

were paid to other staff members would not give the plaintiff a

leavage to claim the amount after his retirement. This clearly

shows that the management paid the pay and allowances to the

other staff members as stated by P.W.2 but denied the same to

P.W.1 deliberately without any reason. P.W.2 in his evidence

specifically stated that the said benefit was not extended to P.W.1

but applied to himself and other staff members after the plaintiff

retirement, and therefore, the argument of the defendant that the

plaintiff approached the Court belatedly one year after the

retirement is not tenable. The defendant willfully not applied the

Government Orders to P.W.1 till his retirement and extended the

same benefit to the other staff members who worked along with

the plaintiff after his retirement and thus rightly approached the

Court. The Court below without considering the above factors

dismissed the suit basing on the arguments of the management.

Therefore, the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside.

The plaintiff entitled for declaration that his last pay is

Rs.17,475/-, recovery of Rs.39,265/- towards the difference in

pension and dearness relief, recovery of Rs.2,19,150/- towards

difference in gratuity, recovery of Rs.2,88,132/- towards arrears of

pay and allowance and for recovery of Rs.1,07,917/- towards

encashment of leave salary.

14. In the result, the Appeal is allowed with costs by setting

aside the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2012 passed in

O.S.No.899 of 2008 on the file of the learned I Senior Civil Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

15. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand

closed in the light of this final judgment.

___________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J.

11th MARCH, 2022.

PGS