Disposed

The Governing Body v. T. Nagarajan

Madras HC21 Jun 2019WA/1003/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge had directed a school to reinstate a teacher. The school appealed. Before hearing, parties settled: the teacher gets reinstatement, continuity of service, and a lump sum of Rs.12.5 lakhs, with pension proposals submitted. The appellate court disposed of the appeal based on this settlement.

What did the court decide?

Retrospective order disposed by approving the settlement memo restoring the first respondent to service with modified back wages of Rs.12,50,000, continuity of service, and pension arrangements.

The Governing Body Vs T. Nagarajan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.06.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURNABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶5

and THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

The Governing Body rep.by the Correspondent, St. Patricks' Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, Gandhinagar, Adyar, Chennai- 600 020. ...Appellant/2^nd Respondent

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.T. Nagarajan ...1^st respondent/Writ Petitioner

¶9

2.The Director of School Education, Chennai – 600 006. ...2^nd respondent/1^st respondent 3.M. Ramamurthy ...3^rd respondent/3^rd respondent

¶10

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order dated 06.11.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.No.26413 of 2007.

¶11

Prayer in W.P.No.26413 of 2007:

¶12

Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issucance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records made in the impugned dismissal order dated 29.07.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the impugned exparte enquiry dated 18.07.2007 by the 3rd respondent and the show cause notice dated 23.7.2007 and quash the same and to direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner with backwages and all attendant benefits.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.ARL. Sunbdaresan, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Sunil Kumar

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.V. Ravi for R1

¶15

Mr.C. Munusamy, Special Government Pleader for R2

¶16

R3- Served – No appearance

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Order of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.,)

¶19

The appellant initiated disciplinary proceedings against the first respondent after issuing show cause notice. The Enquiry Officer appointed by the appellant submitted a report indicating that the charges were proved. Thereafter, by order dated 29.07.2007, the first respondent was terminated from service.

¶20

2.The order dated 29.07.2007 on the file of the management was challenged before the Writ Court in W.P.No.26413 of 2007. The learned Single Judge by order dated 06.11.2017 allowed the Writ Petition and a Mandamus was issued directing the management to reinstate the respondent into service. The said order is under challenge at the instance of the management.

¶21

3.The appeal was heard by us on an earlier occasion. After hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent, we have made a suggestion to settle the issue amicably.

¶22

4.Subsequently, after negotiation, the parties have arrived at a settlement.

¶23

5.When the Intra Court appeal is taken up today, the parties have filed a Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated 21.06.2019. The Memorandum reads thus:

¶24

JOINT MEMO OF COMPROMISE FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶25

1.The 1^st respondent was working as a physical Education Teacher in the appellant school from 04.06.1990. Enquiry was conducted pursuant to a charge memo issued against the 1^st respondent and he was found guilty of charges and was terminated from service on

¶26

29.07.2007. 2.The Writ Petition filed by the 1^st respondent in W.P.No.26413 of 2007 was allowed by this Hon'ble Court by ordering the appellant to reinstate the 1^st respondent with all the service and monetary benefits. 3.The appellant school had filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1003 of 2018 challenging the order passed in W.P.No.26413 of 2007.

¶27

4.Pending Writ Appeal the 1^st respondent attained the age of superannuation on 04.06.2019. Now the appellant and the 1^st respondent had entered into an amicable settlement. The terms of the settlement are as follows:

¶28

I.The appellant and the 1^st respondent had agreed that the relief granted by Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.No.26413 of 2007 shall be modified as reinstatement with Rs.12,50,000/- only towards back wages and all monetary benefits. II.First respondent will be entitled for continuity of service to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. III.In addition, the appellant school had agreed that the 1^st respondent is entitled for full pension and the appellant shall do all in its reach by sending appropriate proceedings to the concerned authority.

¶29

IV.The appellant school today paid the first respondent the said sum of Rs.12,50,000/- (Twelve lakh and fifty thousand only) by Cheque No.024038 dated 20.06.2019 drawn on Union Bank, St. Michaels Academy, Adayar, Chennai. The receipt of which is admitted by the first respondent. V.Appellant shall not be liable for any further or other claims.”

¶30

6.The appellant has paid a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- (Twelve lakh and fifty thousand only) to the first respondent by way of a Cheque dated 26.06.2019 and the same was received by the first respondent on acknowledgement.

¶31

7.The Management agreed to send the proposal for pension within a period of four weeks to the Government. We make it clear that in case the first respondent is entitled to any other benefits, such as encashment of earned leave, etc., such proposal shall also be sent by the Management to the Government.

¶32

8.The Intra Court appeal is disposed of in terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 21.06.2019. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶33

*The Xerox copy of the Joint Memo of Compromise enclosed

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶36

//True Copy//

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

mps

¶39

¶40

The Director of School Education, Chennai – 600 006.

¶41

+1cc to Mr.V.Ravi, Advocate Sr.51314

¶42

+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.51701

¶43

+1cc to Mr.R.Sunil Kumar, Advocate Sr.52225 [27/08/2019]

¶44

W.A.No.1003 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.8510 of 2018

¶45

vd[co] srg 05/08/2019

The Governing Body v. T. Nagarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Governing Body v. T. Nagarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Velmurugan Vs the Dist Collector

The Secretary Vs N.Kumaravel

Union of India rep. by Vs Mr.Sreepathy

S.Sundaramurthy Vs Union of India

S.Nandakumar Vs Tamil Nadu Public Service

S.Alagesan, M.a., Mba, M.Tech, Vs Govt. of Tamil Nadu