A writ petition sought mandamus to recover salary arrears for petitioners from May to September/October 1996. The court dismissed the petition as imaginary and speculative, holding respondents not liable for salaries before appointment in DAV School.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU
W.P. No. 9230 of 1997
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying salary to the petitioners from May, 1996 to September/October 1996, as the case may be, as arbitrary and illegal; consequently, to direct the respondents to pay salaries to the petitioners from May, 1996 to September/October 1996.
According to the petitioners, 2nd respondent is a Central Government undertaking, having its township at Ramagundem, which is known as ‘Fertilizer City’. As the existing schools i.e. Zilla Parishad School and Kendriya Vidyalaya have not been fulfilling the needs and necessities of the children of its employees, 2nd respondent thought it fit to start a School to accommodate the children of its employees. As 2nd respondent did not have sufficient knowledge to administer the School, it was decided to entrust the administration of the School to any one of the educational institutions, who have sufficient knowledge and competency in administering the schools. Pursuant to the said decision, an agreement was entered between 2nd respondent and Chinmaya Trust on 12.10.1985 to administer the day-to-day functioning of the school. Under the terms and conditions of the said agreement, all the funds for providing building with all infrastructural facilities, namely, Laboratory, Class Rooms, Furniture, Salaries of Staff (teaching & non-teaching), Stationery and all other expenses should be borne by 2nd respondent and the school should be administered by a Managing Committee consisting of the representatives of 2nd respondent and Chinmaya Trust and it was agreed to be named as ‘Chinmaya Vidyalaya’. The
teaching and non-teaching staff were recruited by the managing committee by inviting applications through newspapers from the academic year 1986 onwards. For the months of June and October 1995, recruitment was done but the Central Chinmaya Mission Trust issued proceedings dated 1.2.1996 to all the teaching and nonteaching staff, intending to terminate their services w.e.f. 30.4.1996.Therefore, they had filed W.P. No. 8154 of 1996 before this Court seeking a direction to continue their services and this Court, at the admission stage of the said writ petition, by an order dated 18.4.1996 directed 2nd respondent to retain the petitioners in service. The summer vacation of the school and the college was started on 1.5.1996 and the schools were re-opened on 14.6.1996. In the meanwhile, the respondents filed their counter affidavits. Ultimately, the writ petition came up for hearing on 12.6.1996 and on hearing all the parties, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing 2nd respondent and D.A.V to consider continuing all the petitioners or some of them, basing on their antecedents, by appointing them and that unless the petitioners’ case is considered, 2nd respondent and D.A.V. shall not be entitled to consider the applications of the freshers. It was further directed that till the above process is completed, the petitioners shall be entitled to stay in the residential quarters, on usual terms.
Now the grievance of the petitioners is that the interim direction to continue the petitioners in service was passed on 18.4.1996 and the writ petition was disposed of on 12.9.1996 and as the orders passed in the said writ petition were not complied with, C.C. No. 680 of 1996 and the said contempt case was disposed of on 30.8.1996. Therefore, it must be deemed that the petitioners are continuing in service and they are entitled for their salary continuously from May 1996 to September/October, 1996. This is the crux of the writ
petition.
The respondents filed detailed counter and it is stated that the petitioners earlier worked with CCMT, Mumbai and as per the terms and conditions of their appointment, their services have been terminated by CCMT w.e.f. 30.4.1996 and final dues payable have already been paid. Further, as per the directions of this Court, the petitioners have been appointed by DAV College Trust and Management Society and from the date of their appointment in DAV School, their salaries are being paid regularly. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that they should be paid salaries from 1.5.1996 till their appointment in DAV School, is not correct. The CCMT, Mumbai and the DAV College Trust and Management Society, New Delhi are different and distinct organizations and payment of salaries from 1.5.1996 to the date of their appointment by DAV is not tenable as they neither worked nor appointed by 3rd respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 are not liable for payment of so called arrears to the petitioners for the aforesaid reasons.
From the above, it is clear that the petitioners were initially appointed in CCMT, Mumbai and thereafter they were appointed and worked in DAV College and Trust, New Dehi, and both of them are distinct from each other. There was a direction by this Court to continue the petitioners in service, but there is no proof that they have been continued in service and they have rendered their services in the school continuously, in order to claim salary etc. On the other hand, the petitioners’ services have been terminated by CCMT, Mumbai as per the terms and conditions of their appointment and thereafter the petitioners have been appointed by DAV College Trust and Management Society, New Delhi, which is entirely a new organization and, therefore, the question of payment of salaries to the petitioners for the period from 1.5.1996 to the date of their appointment
in DAV School does not arise.
Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is purely imaginary and speculative. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU.
Date: 19-1-2009.
MVB.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents are liable to pay salary arrears to petitioners from May 1996 to September/October 1996 where petitioners claim they were continuing in service due to an interim direction.
petitioners
2nd respondent
3rd respondent
CCMT, Mumbai
DAV College Trust and Management Society, New Delhi
C.V. RAMULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
