Disposed

Joseph Hilda Fernando(Died) v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC21 Mar 2018WP(MD)/5458/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking an order to a private school to pay arrears of differential pay and gratuity. The Court was satisfied that services were rendered and directed the school management to consider the petitioners' representations and pass an order on merits within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 5th respondent (school management) to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners and pass an order on merits within 12 weeks.

Joseph Hilda Fernando(Died) Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.03.2018

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P(MD)No.5458 of 2013 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶6

1.Joseph Hilda Fenando (Died) 2.M.Fidelis Valdaris ... Petitioners

¶7

( P2 Substituted vide order dated 21.03.2018)

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 006.

¶10

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶11

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District, Seena Vana Government Higher Secondary School Campus, Thoothukudi -628 002.

¶12

4.The District Educational Officer, Thoothukudi Educational District, Seen Vana Government Higher Secondary School Campus, Thoothukudi -628 002.

¶13

5.The Secretary, Spic Nagar Higher Secondary School, Spic Nagar (post) 628005, Thoothukudi & District. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 5th respondent school to pay forthwith to the petitioner a sum of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.4,01,568/- with interest towards the arrears of differential pay for the period of petitioner's service between 01.01.2007 and

¶15

¶16

31.05.2011 as per the VI Pay Commission recommendation including Gratuity, which the petitioner is legally entitled to.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.Cibi Chakkaravarthy For Respondents 1 to4 : Mr.M.Muthu, Additional Government pleader For Respondent 5 : Mr.P.Chandrabose

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the 5^th respondent school to pay forthwith to the petitioner a sum of Rs.4,01,568/- with interest towards the arrears of differential pay for the period of petitioner's service between 01.01.2007 and 31.05.2011 as per the VI Pay Commission recommendation including Gratuity, which the petitioner is legally entitled to.

¶20

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was properly appointed by the 5^th respondent school and served for a considerable length of time. However, the monetary benefits due to the writ petitioner were not been settled by the 5^th respondent, in spite of repeated representations. The writ petitioner claims that she is eligible for the monetary benefits as applicable to her and the same has not been disbursed so far.

¶21

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents made submissions that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the fact that the appointment of the writ petitioner was not approved by the educational authorities. The school being a private one, the claims are to be made against the management.

¶22

4.This Court is of an opinion that the services of the writ petitioner were engaged by the School and the salary and other payable monetary benefits are to be settled in their favour in accordance with the terms and conditions. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that it is suffice if a direction is issued to the 5^th respondent to consider the case of the writ petitioners.

¶23

5.The learned Counsel for the 5^th respondent made submissions that the dues to the writ petitioners were already settled and therefore, there is no liability on the part of the 5^th respondent to settle any further amount. May that it be, it is for the management to consider the entire issues and if any payments are to be made, the same can be considered and in this regard and the writ petitioner had already submitted a number of representations to the 5^th respondent.

¶24

6.The 5^th respondent is directed to consider those https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ representations submitted by the writ petitioner and pass order on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks

¶25

¶26

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

7.Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

Sd/ Assistant Registrar(Crl side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

To 1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 006. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District, Seena Vana Government Higher Secondary School Campus, Thoothukudi -628 002. 4.The District Educational Officer, Thoothukudi Educational District, Seen Vana Government Higher Secondary School Campus, Thoothukudi -628 002. +1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.No. 57320

¶30

W.P(MD)No.5458 of 2013 21.03.2018 dsk KK/SV MMS/20.04.2018/SAR-1/3P-6C

¶31

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

Joseph Hilda Fernando(Died) v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Hilda Fernando(Died) v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

K.Thirumalai, Vs the District Collector

N.Rajaram, Vs the Chief Accountant General

S.Joseph Alphonse Raj, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

A.V. Tharini,(Died) Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

The Manager, Icici Lombard Vs Mrs.Lakshmi

D.Baskaradoss, Vs the Chairman