Dismissed¶46

R.Mathivanan v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC19 Feb 2025WA(MD)/1609/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: re-employment of teachers retiring mid-academic year; superannuation on 31/03/2014; salary claim for April-May 2014; 'no work no pay'; disciplinary proceedings and charge memo dated 06.06.2012; Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department; Directorate of Collegiate Education; Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai order dated 16/04/2014; Madurai Kamarajar University examiner duty; Arulmigu Palanianadavar College, Palani; W.A.(MD)No.1609 of 2018; decided 19.02.2025 by Dr. G. Jayachandran, J. and R. Poornima, J.; writ appeal dismissed, no costs; no precedent cases discussed.

What did the court decide?

None; the Writ Appeal was dismissed with no costs, and the claim for salary for April and May 2014 fails under the 'no work no pay' principle. ¶46

R.Mathivanan Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Writ Appeal was dismissed with no costs, and the claim for salary for April and May 2014 fails under the 'no work no pay' principle.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether it is mandatory to re-employ a teaching faculty member who retires in the middle of the academic year till the end of that academic year, and whether the College Management's refusal to engage the appellant citing disciplinary proceedings is bad in law. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

The appellant's contention (that mandatory re-employment entitled him to salary for the period worked) is not sustainable, for the singular reason that there is no record to show that the Management re-employed the appellant after he attained superannuation.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The records relied on by the appellant are self-serving documents or letters from the University which sought his assistance as Examiner.

¶45

Key takeaways

It is not disputed that the appellant faced disciplinary proceedings on the date of his superannuation; the subsequent exoneration of the charges post-retirement will not enure to him any monetary benefit of re-employment which was not given effect.ratio¶45
Since the re-employment was never given effect, the 'no work no pay' principle has to be applied in the instant case, defeating the claim for salary for April and May 2014.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (W.A.(MD)No.1609 of 2018, decided 19.02.2025) by a retired Head of the Zoology Department of Arulmigu Palanianadavar College of Arts and Science, Palani, who superannuated on 31/03/2014, challenging the learned Single Judge's order dated 08.12.2017 in W.P.(MD)No.8339 of 2014 dismissing as infructuous his claim for salary for April and May 2014, premised on mandatory re-employment till the end of the academic year. HELD: the appellant's contention is not sustainable, as there is no record that the Management re-employed him after superannuation; the materials relied upon are self-serving documents or University letters engaging him as Examiner; he admittedly faced disciplinary proceedings on the date of superannuation, and their subsequent exoneration post-retirement confers no monetary benefit of re-employment which was never given effect; accordingly the 'no work no pay' principle applies. Writ Appeal dismissed. No costs.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.1609 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

RESERVED ON : 13.02.2025

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON : 19.02.2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶7

W.A.(MD)No.1609 of 2018

¶8

Dr.R.Mathivanan

¶9

... Appellant/Respondent

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, through its Secretary, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶12

2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.19, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Chennai-34.

¶13

3.The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai- 600 006.

¶14

4.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, Vaithiyanadhayyar Street, Shenoy Nagar, Madurai-20.

¶15

_______________ Page 1 of 10_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.A.(MD)No.1609 of 2018

¶17

5.The Deputy Commissioner/Secretary, Arulmigu Palanidandavar College of Arts & Culture, Palani-624 601, Dindigul District. ... Respondents/ Respondents

¶18

Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.8339 of 2014 dated 08.12.2017 on the file of this Court.

¶19

For Appellant : Mr.E.V.N.Siva For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4 : Mr.K.Govindarajan for R5

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

[ Judgment of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

¶23

The appellant herein served in the Arulmigu Palanianadavar College of Arts and Science at Palani as Head of the Zoology Department

¶24

and attained superannuation on 31/03/2014. Relying on the proceedings issued by the Director of Collegiate Education dated 06/06/2012, the appellant vide his representation dated 06/02/2014 sought for re-

¶25

_______________ Page 2 of 10_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.A.(MD)No.1609 of 2018

¶27

employment till the end of academic year 2014. The said request was rejected by the Management in view of a disciplinary proceedings pending against him. However based on the letters dated 16/04/2014 and 20/05/2014 issued by the Controller of Examination, Madurai Kamarajar University requesting the appellant to attend the Board meeting of examiners and few other records like his leave letter dated 09/04/2014 and internal marks statement prepared by the appellant, Writ Petition(MD).No. 8339 of 2014 was filed by the appellant seeking salary for the month of April and May, 2014 on the premise that he had been given re-employment for two months period till the end of the academic year.

¶28

The Management successfully contested writ petition stating that the appellant was facing disciplinary proceedings on the date of his superannuation. Hence he was found not fit for re-employment. In fact he did not serve with the College after 31/03/2014 to claim salary. He was paid all his retirement benefits and duly received. The Disciplinary proceedings came to end on 20/06/2016. The right of re-employment is not automatic though the proceedings of DCE state it as mandatory.

¶29

_______________ Page 3 of 10_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.A.(MD)No.1609 of 2018

¶31

3.The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition for the reason below:-

¶32

“2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Head of the Department of Zoology at the fifth respondent College since 2007. While attaining superannuation on 31.03.2014, he has already given a representation on 06.02.2014 to the fifth respondent through the Principal seeking for extension of service till the end of the said academic year. The fifth respondent issued show cause notice dated 24.03.2014, asking him to submit the written explanation whether the extension/reemployment should be denied to him, since the departments proceedings are pending against him. The petitioner sent a explanation on 11.03.2014 stating that the third respondent has made it clear that all the extension/reemployment should be offered to all the teacher, who attain superannuation on the middle of the academic year and it is made mandatory therein, hence the fifth respondent cannot be denied the same to him. The fifth respondent had rejected his request on 24.03.2014 for extension/reemployment on the ground that the charge memo dated 06.06.2012 is pending against him. The charge memo was challenged in W.P.(MD)No.5524 of 2010 stating that the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules

¶33

_______________ Page 4 of 10_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.A.(MD)No.1609 of 2018

¶35

are not applicable to the petitioner, who is working in the private aided college and the said Writ Petition was dismissed. The Writ Appeal was also filed by the petitioner herein. While the same was pending, two more Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioner and the same were disposed off by common order dated 21.04.2014, rejecting his request for re-employment and in spite of that the petitioner was expecting the fifth respondent to pass an order permitting him to continue till the end of the academic year and claiming salary for the months of April and May, 2014. Since he sent a representation, nothing was forthcoming for claiming of salary and other benefits, he filed this Writ.

¶36

3. Now, on the day of filing this Writ Petition, no interim order was granted on 22.05.2014. It was submitted by the petitioner though the fourth respondent had passed an order directing the fifth respondent to give reemployment to the petitioner. So far, the fifth respondent had not implemented the order passed by the fourth respondent.

¶37

4. It is seen that earlier in 2014, the learned Government Pleader had taken time to get instruction whether the fourth respondent had informed the fifth respondent regarding the said order passed, but till date the matter was not listed before this Court. The prayer is

¶38

_______________ Page 5 of 10_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.A.(MD)No.1609 of 2018

¶40

only for seeking extension of two months i.e., after the superannuation, for the months of April and May in 2014. Now we are standing in the fag end of the year 2017 and this Court finds nothing survives in this matter and hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.”

¶41

The above order is impugned on the ground that, it is mandatory to re-employ a teaching faculty who retire in the middle of the Academic year till the end of the said academic year. The College Management refusal to engage the appellant citing disciplinary proceedings is bad in law. Further, during the period there are evidence to show that the appellant was engaged by the University for examination work. The appellant was ordered to be re-employed up to May 31^st , 2014 in the proceedings of the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai, dated 16/04/2014. Therefore, the learned single Judge ought not to have dismissed his Writ of Mandamus seeking salary for the period he worked.

¶42

The above contention of the appellant not sustainable for the singular reason that there is no record to show that the Management reemployed the appellant after he attained superannuation. The records relied

¶43

_______________ Page 6 of 10_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.A.(MD)No.1609 of 2018

¶45

by the appellant are self serving documents or letter from the University which has sought his assistance as Examiner. The fact that on the date of his superannuation he was facing disciplinary proceedings is not in dispute. The subsequent exoneration of the charges post retirement will not enure any monetary benefit of re-employment, which was not given effect. Hence, ‘no work no pay’ principle has to be applied in the instant case.

¶46

As a result, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No Costs.

¶47

[G.J, J.] [R.P., J.] 19.02.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PJL

¶48

To 1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶49

2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.19, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Chennai-34.

¶50

_______________ Page 7 of 10_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.A.(MD)No.1609 of 2018

¶52

3.The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai- 600 006.

¶53

4.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, Vaithiyanadhayyar Street, Shenoy Nagar, Madurai-20.

¶54

_______________ Page 8 of 10_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

W.A.(MD)No.1609 of 2018

¶56

_______________ Page 9 of 10_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

W.A.(MD)No.1609 of 2018

¶58

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. and R.POORNIMA, J.

¶59

PJL

¶60

Pre-delivery Judgment made in W.A.(MD)No.1609 of 2018

¶61

19.02.2025

¶62

_______________ Page 10 of 10_ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.8339 of 2014 dismissing the appellant's writ petition (claiming salary for April and May 2014) as infructuous on the ground that nothing survived in the matter; challenged in this writ appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent.¶18
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (learned Single Judge) · 08.12.2017
Prior proceeding
The appellant served as Head of the Zoology Department at Arulmigu Palanianadavar College of Arts and Science, Palani, and attained superannuation on 31/03/2014.¶23
Prior proceeding
Relying on the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 06/06/2012, the appellant by representation dated 06/02/2014 sought re-employment till the end of academic year 2014.¶24
Prior proceeding
The Management rejected the re-employment request in view of disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant.¶27
Prior proceeding
As recorded in the learned Single Judge's order: a show cause notice dated 24.03.2014 asked the appellant to explain why extension/re-employment should not be denied; he sent an explanation on 11.03.2014.¶32
Prior proceeding
Request for extension/re-employment rejected on 24.03.2014 on the ground that the charge memo dated 06.06.2012 was pending; the charge memo had been challenged in W.P.(MD)No.5524 of 2010.¶32
Prior proceeding
The writ petition against the charge memo (W.P.(MD)No.5524 of 2010) was dismissed and a writ appeal was filed by the petitioner therein.¶35
Prior proceeding
Two further writ petitions filed by the appellant were disposed of by common order dated 21.04.2014, rejecting his request for re-employment.¶35
Prior proceeding
Letters dated 16/04/2014 and 20/05/2014 issued by the Controller of Examination, Madurai Kamarajar University requested the appellant to attend the Board meeting of examiners.¶27
Prior proceeding
Writ Petition(MD).No.8339 of 2014 was filed by the appellant seeking salary for April and May 2014 on the premise that he had been given re-employment for a two-month period till the end of the academic year.¶27
Prior proceeding
Management's contestation: the appellant did not serve with the College after 31/03/2014 to claim salary, and was paid all his retirement benefits which he duly received.¶28
Prior proceeding
Management's further stand: disciplinary proceedings came to an end on 20/06/2016; the right of re-employment is not automatic though the DCE proceedings state it as mandatory.¶28
Prior proceeding
As urged by the appellant: he was ordered to be re-employed up to 31.05.2014 by the proceedings of the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai, dated 16/04/2014.¶41

R.Mathivanan v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Mathivanan v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malaiyarasi Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Vetrivel Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

V.Perumal Vs the Secretary to Government

Ramesh Vs The state of Tamil Nadu

Rajeswaran Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

B.Muthulakshmi Vs the Managing Director