Partly allowed

S.Gandhi, v. the Director of School

Madras HC12 Feb 2013WP/18613/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought re-employment and pension benefits. Court dismissed petition for re-employment due to unsubstantiated claim of application receipt by respondents. School management discharged from contempt by accepting unconditional apology. Pension petition disposed with direction to expedite clearance.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition No.18613 of 2011 dismissed; Contempt Petition Nos.1770 of 2012 closed upon apology; Writ Petition No.8962 of 2012 disposed with direction for expeditious pension clearance.

S.Gandhi, Vs the Director of School — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.02.2013

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

¶5

W.P.Nos.18613 of 2011 and 8962 of 2012 and Cont.P.No.1770 of 2012

¶6

&
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 in W.P.No.18613 OF 2011
S.Gandhi .. Petitioner in both Writ
Petitions and Contempt Petition
Vs.
1. The Director of School Education
College Road
Nungambakkam
Chennai 6
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer
Nagapattinam
3. S.M.S.Middle School
Rep.by its Secretary
Sethiruppu, Alakudi
Nagapattinam District
.. Respondents in W.P.No.18613/2011
1. The Director of School Education
College Road
Nungambakkam
Chennai 6
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer
Nagapattinam
3. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer
Kollidam
Nagapattinam District

¶7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶8

S.M.S.Middle School Rep.by its Secretary Sethiruppu, Alakudi Nagapattinam District .. Respondents in W.P.No.8962/2012

¶9

Tmt.S.Nilavoli District Elementary Educational Officer Nagapattinam

¶10

Mr.T.Ramesh Secretary S.M.S.Middle School Sethiruppu, Alakudi Nagapattinam District .. Respondents in Cont.P.No.1770/2012

¶11

Prayer in W.P.No.18613 of 2011: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to give re-employment to the petitioner till the end of academic year i.e. 31.05.2012. Prayer in W.P.No.8962 of 2012: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned letter of the 4th respondent in Letter No.11/2011 dated 4.11.2011 quash the same and direct the 4th respondent to send the petitioner's proposal for pension and other benefits to the authorities.

¶12

Prayer in Cont.P.No.1770/2012:

¶13

Pleased to pursuant the respondents herein for his wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in MP.No.1 of 2011 in WP.No.18613/11 dated 09.08.2011

¶14

For Petitioner in both Writ Petitions and Contempt Petition :: Mr.R.Subramanian

¶15

For Respondents 1 & 2 in W.P.18613/2011 for respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.8962/2012 for respondent-1 in Contempt Petition :: Mr.V.Subbiah, Spl.G.P.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

For Respondent No. 3 in W.P.18613/2011 for respondent No.4 in W.P.8962/2012 for respondent No.2 in Contempt Petition :: Mr.S.N.Ravichandran

¶18

COMMON ORDER

¶19

These two Writ Petitions as well as the Contempt Petition are filed by the same petitioner. In the first Writ Petition, he sought for a direction to give re-employment to him till the end of academic year i.e. 31.05.2012. It is the case of the petitioner that he was reaching the age of superannuation on 31.8.2011. As per the orders of the Government, he is entitled to continue in service till 31.5.2012. The Writ Petition was admitted on 9.8.2011. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted an Interim Injunction. Vacate Stay application has been filed by the School management together with counter affidavit dated 10.12.2011.

¶20

Alleging that the said Interim Injunction was flouted by the management, Contempt Petition No.1770 of 2012 came to be filed. When the Contempt Petition came up for hearing on 7.1.2013, it was directed to be posted along with the first Writ Petition filed by the petitioner as well as the subsequent Writ Petition filed in W.P.No.8962 of 2012.. Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the School management took notice and offered to file reply to the allegations made against them. The Correspondent of the School, who was 2nd respondent in the Contempt Petition was directed to appear before this Court. Accordingly, he appeared and his presence was dispensed with on 30.1.2013. He also filed a counter affidavit.

¶21

During the pendency of the 1^st Writ Petition, the petitioner also filed a second Writ Petition challenging an order dated 4.11.2011 informing that there was a delay in sending pension proposals, since his salary could not be fixed as there was an audit objection at the earlier point of time and objection has to be reconciled. When that Writ Petition came up on 9.4.2012, the learned Special Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the respondents.

¶22

These two Writ Petitions were clubbed together and came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice vide order dated 3.1.2013.

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

Though pursuant to the Contempt Petition, the management offered to send proposal for reemployment of the petitioner from 1.9.2011 to 31.5.2012 and grant salary for the said period, this Court is not inclined to go with the offer made by the School management and it has to be strictly construed in these Writ Petitions as to whether the petitioner is entitled for getting reemployment in the School till the end of the academic year or whether the formalities for having the benefit of reemployment have been complied with.

¶25

In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner in paragraph No.3 stated that on 15.7.2011, he had applied to the management enclosing the Fitness Certificate. On 20.7.2011, he sent a reminder to the respondents.

¶26

The allegation that the petitioner sent a representation on 15.7.2011 was stoutly denied by the School management in paragraph 5 of their counter affidavit. It is stated that on 31.8.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner was relieved from service and relieving order sent to him by Registered Post came back unclaimed and he had not submitted any request/representation for reemployment. Further, it was alleged that the letter dated 15.7.2011 is said to have been sent by the petitioner by Registered Post. It is to be pointed out that the said letter was not the letter, which was covered by the postal receipt enclosed. According to Mr.S.N.Ravinchandran, supported by the counter affidavit, the cover which was received by the management as per the postal receipt, contains 85 gms. of materials. It is now stated by them that this is the pension proposal sent by the School Teacher and not the request for reemployment.

¶27

The petitioner claimed that he sent a reminder on 20.7.2011, a copy of which is found page 5. The postal receipt for having sent the representation is dated 22.7.2011 and it is only addressed to the District Elementary Educational Officer through the office of Assistant Elementary Educational Officer. In that letter, there is a statement made that the petitioner had made a request for reemployment along with the proper application form. But, there is nothing indicated in the said letter that it was marked to the School management, when there was obligation for the School management either to accept or deny the stand of the petitioner.

¶28

Though the affidavit states that the letter was given on 15.7.2011, the postal receipt shows it was posted in the Post Office by Registered Post only on 21.7.2011. Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

counsel for the School management makes a further allegation that if there is a requisition followed by Fitness Certificate, then the postal cover would have been lesser on the weight as found in the postal receipt found in page 5, where a similar letter to the educational authorities contain only 30 gms. of materials and not 85 gms.

¶31

In any event, when the counter stoutly denies that they have received the proposals for reemployment of the petitioner and the petitioner has not chosen to controvert the same by filing any other material or rejoinder, this Court is unable to accept the stand of the petitioner that he had actually made request for reemployment. Under the circumstances, since there is a dispute regarding the petitioner's request for reemployment, this Court is not satisfied with the claim made by the petitioner in W.P.No.18613 of 2011. No relief can be granted. Hence, the Writ Petition No.18613 of 2011

¶32

stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶33

Contempt Petition NO.1770 of 2012 was filed for not obeying the order dated 9.8.2011. In response to the Contempt Petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Secretary of the School management. In the counter affidavit, it is stated by him that though the reference was made to the interim injunction granted on 9.8.2011, yet the management has chosen to relieve the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2011. While the interim order was sent by Registered Post, during that period, he was not present in the School. Therefore, the allegation that he refused to receive the letter, was denied by him. However, it is stated that he tendered unconditional apology.

¶34

The counter affidavit is not satisfactory. When once there is an order of interim injunction, the respondents should have come forward to implement the order and by filing the Vacate Stay Application, the respondents cannot take law into their hands. Hence, the Contempt Petition stands closed.

¶35

In W.P.No.8962 of 2012, the prayer of the petitioner is to challenge an order dated 4.11.2011 (as already stated), wherein and by which he was informed the reason for the delay in sending the pension proposals. It is stated by the petitioner that the 4^th respondent School is statutorily controlled and they are bound to send the pension proposals. Already, audit objection was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.14667 of 2003.

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

It is stated by the management that pension proposals received from the petitioner was forwarded to the Department and it was returned to the petitioner, who in turn re-submitted. The management on 21.1.2013 forwarded the pension proposals to the Accountant General.

¶38

In the light of the same, the Writ Petition No.8962 of 2012 is disposed of with a direction to the 1^st and 2nd respondents to take expeditious steps in getting the pension proposals cleared at an early date. No costs.

¶39

Sd/
Assistant Registrar
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
ajr
To
1. The Director of School Education
College Road, Nungambakkam
Chennai 6
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer
Nagapattinam
3. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer
Kollidam, Nagapattinam District
4. S.M.S.Middle School
Rep.by its Secretary
Sethiruppu, Alakudi
Nagapattinam District
5. Tmt.S.Nilavoli
District Elementary Educational Officer
Nagapattinam

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶41

Mr.T.Ramesh Secretary S.M.S.Middle School Sethiruppu, Alakudi Nagapattinam District

¶42

1 C.C. TO MR.S.N.Ravichandran sr.no.8189 dt 12.02.2013 in WP.8962/2013

¶43

2 C.C. TO MR.R.Subramanian sr.no.8476, 8477 dt 13.02.2013 in
WP.18613/11 crl.op.8962/2013
+ 1 c.c. To Government Pleader Sr.8420 dt 13.02.2013 in WP.8962/12,
18613/12 op.1770/2012
W.P.Nos.18613 of 2011
and 8962 of 2012 and
Cont.P.No.1770 of 2012
AD[CO]
KS 20/02/2013

¶44

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Gandhi, v. the Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Gandhi, v. the Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Thomas Franco Rajendra Dev, Vs the Disciplinary Authority and

P.Jagananthan Vs the Secretary, Govt., of

S.Arunkumar, Vs the Chairman

The Secretary Vs the State of Tamilnadu

V.Vinoth Vs the Director General of Police

M/S.Advanced Biotech Products Vs the Managing Director