The High Court of Madras dismissed a review application challenging an order denying re-employment and salary benefits to a retired teacher. The Court held that the interim regularization by a third respondent could not be invoked to seek review.
The review application was dismissed with no costs awarded to any party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Rev. Appl. No.114 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Rev. Appl.No.114 of 2021
M.Devanathan ... Petitioner
-vs-
PRAYER : Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC seeking to review the order dated 22.01.2021 passed in W.A.No.1026 of 2020 on the file of this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sreedhar
For Respondents : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Addl. Govt. Pleader * * * * *
Page 1 of 8
Rev. Appl. No.114 of 2021
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J )
This review application is filed seeking review of the judgment dated 22.01.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1026 of 2020.
the order of punishment of censure as well as the order rejecting the request of the applicant/writ petitioner seeking reemployment to continue in service till the end of the academic year. Both the writ petitions were allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. It is to be noted that the writ petitions themselves were heard after the period for which the writ petitioner sought for reemployment.
WA.2886 of 2019 filed by the Director of School Education against the order allowing the writ petition setting aside the order of punishment was dismissed. The writ appeal WA.1026 of 2020 filed by the Director of School Education against the order of the learned Single Judge directing
Page 2 of 8
Rev. Appl. No.114 of 2021
the appellants to pay salary for the re-employment period from 01.12.2009 to 31.05.2010 was allowed. It is against the said order, the present review application is filed. The relevant paragraphs in the writ appeal are as follows:
"17. As far as the plea of extension of service of the respondent is concerned till the end of the academic year, we wish to observe that re-employment of a teacher is not meant to benefit a teacher. The object of re-employment is to ensure that the students are not affected when a teacher is set to retire from serivce during the middle of the academic. At the same time, the teacher who seeks for re-employment must exhibit a blame-worthy conduct and free from any disciplinary proceedings pending against him. since the order of punishment has been quashed, it does not mean automatically, the respondent is entitled for re-employment. Moreover, the service of the respondent had not been extended after his retirement, on re-employment. Therefor,e when the respondent has not got his service extended after his retirement, rather to say, he has not worked physically, after his retirement, the question of granting monetary benefits to the respondent will not arise. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing WP No.25307 of 2009 is liable
Page 3 of 8
Rev. Appl. No.114 of 2021
to be set aside.
18. In the result,
(i) Writ Appal No.2886 of 2019 is
dismissed by confirming the order dated 28.06.2018 passedin WP No.3041 of 2010.
(ii) Writ Appeal No.1026 of 2010 (sic) is allowed by setting aside the order dated 28.06.2018 passed in WP No.25307 of 2009.
(iii) The appellants are directed to confer all monetary benefits payable to the respondent/writ petitioner, upon his retirement from service, including pension, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."
",jw;fpilapy; kDjhuh; brd;id.
Page 4 of 8
Rev. Appl. No.114 of 2021
cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy;. ePjpkd;w mtkjpg;g[ tHf;F bjhlh;e;J. mt;tHf;F 03/02/2020 md;W nfl;g[f;F tug;bgw;wJ vd;Wk; 10/02/2020f;Fs; chpa Mizfs; tH';f ntz;Lk; vd ePjpkd;wj;jpy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;lJ vd;Wk; muR rpwg;g[ tHf;fwp"h; bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ vdnt ePjpkd;w mtkjpg;g[ tHf;F jtph;f;Fk; tpjkhft[k;. ghh;it 1d;go tH';fg;gl;l jPh;g;ghizia bray;gLj;Jk; tpjkhft[k; nky;KiwaPL kDtpd; kPJ bgwg;gLk; ePjpkd;w jPh;g;ghizf;Fl;gl;L (Out came of writ appeal) muR rpwg;g[ tHf;fwp"h; Twpajd; mog;gilapy; nkw;go MrphpaUf;F 01/12/2009 Kjy; 31/05/2010 tiu kWepakd fhykhf fUjg;gl;L ,jd; K:yk; Miz tH';fg;gLfpwJ/"
has been submitted by the review applicant, in order to avoid contempt proceedings against the appellants, an opinion was obtained from the Special Government Pleader, pursuant to which, an order has been passed on 06.02.2020 treating the period from 01.12.2009 to 31.05.2010 as the period during which the writ petitioner was on re-employment subject to the outcome of writ appeal. This order cannot be taken advantage by the review applicant to seek review of the order dated 22.01.2021 passed in the writ appeal.
Page 5 of 8
Rev. Appl. No.114 of 2021
matter purely on merits and held that the review applicant/writ petitioner is not entitled to re-employment for valid reasons. There is no error apparent on the face of record and the order of the Division Bench cannot be read as if this order in the writ appeal is subject to the order passed by the third respondent during the pendency of the writ appeal. Had the order of the third respondent dated 06.02.2020 been brought to the notice of this Court while disposing of the writ appeal, the Division Bench would have set aside the order or would have made an observation that the said order will not control the order to be passed in the writ appeal on merits.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (S.S.K., J.) 07.08.2024
Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No sra
To
Page 6 of 8
Rev. Appl. No.114 of 2021
Page 7 of 8
Rev. Appl. No.114 of 2021
S.S.SUNDAR, J. and SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
(sra)
Rev. Appl.No.114 of 2021
07.08.2024
Page 8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review application can be granted when the relief sought relates to an interim order passed during the pendency of the writ appeal.
Whether the review applicant is entitled to monetary benefits and re-employment contrary to the Division Bench judgment.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Devanathan
The Director of School Education, Nungambakkam, Chennai
The Chief Educational Officer, Vellore District
The District Educational Officer, Vellore District
The Head Mistress, Government Girsl High School, Guruvarajapet, Arakkonam
S.S. Sundar
Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
