Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

T.SAROJINI versus THE MANAGER A

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


T.Sarojini v. The Manager a - Writ Petition No.1127 of 1995 [2002] RD-TN 362 (14 June 2002)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 14/06/2002

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.SIRPURKAR

Writ Petition No.1127 of 1995

T.Sarojini .. Petitioner -Vs-

1.The Manager and Correspondent

M.D.Elementary School

Marikuppam, P.R.Puram

Erumbi [via],

Chengai MGR District.

2.The District Educational Officer

Tiruvallur, Chengai MGR District.

3.The Director of Elementary

Education, College Road

Madras-6. .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Mandamus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Miss.K.Suguna

For Respondents :

R1 : Mr.Robin Raj

for Mr.Peppin Fernando RR 2 & 3 : Mr.Mahimai Raj

Government Advocate :O R D E R



The writ petitioner is an unfortunate teacher, who has been a prey of the vagaries of the school management. She was appointed for the first time in the year 1971 as a Higher Grade teacher. She became a Secondary Grade Assistant in 1973. Thereafter, she was elevated as a Headmistress of the primary school in the year 1976 and she continued to be so till 1.7.1987, on which date she was re-posted as a Secondary Grade Assistant. The status of the headmistress of the primary school and the Secondary Grade Assistant, till then, was equal. However, since she was re-posted as a Secondary Grade Assistant, she filed an appeal on 3.7.1987. Perhaps, as a result of the appeal, she was posted back on 27.10.1989 by the school management. The order dated 27 .10.1989 specifically uses the word "reinstatement". It is suggested in that order, which is signed by the Correspondent, M.D.Elementary and Middle School, Ranipet Circle, that Mrs.T.Sarojini, who was " reverted" from Headmistress in 1987 and now working as Assistant in the M.D.Elementary School, Marikuppam is "reinstated" as Headmistress in the same school and the present Headmaster Mr.Manoharan, being the junior most, is reverted as Assistant for work of vacancy posted in the same school, where he is working now. This was not objected to either by Mr.Manoharan or by the Education Department and the petitioner continued to serve in the capacity of the Headmistress upto 11.12.1992. It is to be noted that from 1.6.1988, the Headmistress post became a promotional post and earned better salary. Be that as it may.

2. While the petitioner kept on working, she was slapped with another order dated 11.12.1992, wherein she was directed to be reverted to the post of Assistant in the same school. A glance at this order would show that this order was passed in pursuance of the orders of the District Educational Officer dated 17.9.1992 bearing No.3790/A2/92. There appears to be a reference to another order also purported to have been passed by the Assistant Educational Officer dated 28.9.1992 bearing R.C.No.305/A2/92. Perhaps, in pursuance of these two orders, the management again switched the positions of Manoharan vis-a-vis the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Director because obviously and admittedly Mr.Manoharan was junior to her and she could not have thrown out from her position as a Headmistress. That appeal, perhaps, prevailed and the Management again passed an order dated 1.10.1994 again promoting her as Headmistress. This time, the Management took adequate care to see that the order would take effect only from 1.10.1994.

3. The petitioner has now come before us and has asked for fixation of her salary in the scale of a Headmistress. More particularly, the petitioner's prayer is that her salary for the period between 1.7.19 87 to 5.11.1989 and 15.12.1992 to 13.9.1994 should be paid to her with all consequential benefits as she has obviously retired in the meantime.

4. Miss.Suguna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that if it was an admitted position that the petitioner was a senior person and Manoharan was the junior most person and if this was acknowledged and the petitioner was reinstated on 27.10.1989, it would only mean that she continued to be in the post of a Headmistress right from 1.7.1987 and as such, she would be entitled to the salary in that post. She further pointed out that even after she continued to work up to 11.12.1992, she has been, perhaps, at the behest of some officers in the Education Department, again reverted for no fault of her, and she then continued to serve in the reverted capacity upto 1.1 0.1994. She points out that this reversion has no basis whatsoever and, therefore, she was liable to be paid the salary in her capacity as a Headmistress between the period 11.12.1992 till 1.10.1994 and further, because she was admittedly appointed as Headmistress again on 1 .10.1994. There can be no doubt that the petitioner was much more senior to Manoharan, who was admittedly the junior most person. There can also be no doubt that the petitioner was actually working and has been reverted at the vagaries of the school management, without holding any enquiry or without finding her guilty of any misconduct. Therefore, it must be deemed that the petitioner continued to be the Headmistress right from 3.7.1987 upto 1.10.1994 and that she would be entitled to that salary.

5. The learned Government Advocate could not support the orders allegedly passed by the District Educational Officer on 17.9.1992 or by the Assistant Educational Officer on 28.9.1992 and could not justify as to under what circumstances these orders came to be passed and why. The learned Government Advocate drew complete blank in this behalf. When the learned counsel for the Management was specifically asked, he could not get out of the position that Mr. Manoharan was a junior most person. There is a seniority list at page 7 of the typed set, which also shows that the petitioner is senior, she being at Serial number 19. Though Mr.J.Manoharan is shown at serial number 18, it is really not understood, because obviously he has joined as a secondary grade teacher on 1.10.1973, whereas the petitioner has joined on 1.10 .1971. That apart, there is an order passed by the Management itself dated 27.10.1989, where Mr.Manoharan is shown as the junior most person and he is also reverted. Therefore, there cannot be any difficulty in holding that the petitioner was senior to Mr.Manoharan.

6. Be that as it may. We are not concerned with the dispute of seniority in this writ petition. Once the petitioner was serving properly in the post of headmistress and once she was liable to be continued there, there was no point in reverting her without any justification or without holding any enquiry against her.

7. Under such circumstances, it must be held that she would be deemed to have continued as a headmistress all through and she would be entitled to the salary. She shall be accordingly granted the salary in between the period of 1.7.1987 to 1.10.1994 and her pension shall be fixed and calculated as if she was never reverted and she continued to be working as a headmistress. The salary shall be payable by the management. But, if the management fails to pay the salary within two months from today, the salary shall be payable by the Government, whose officers have passed the concerned orders, within two months thereafter. The Government shall, however, be entitled to recover the salary from the non-salary grants of the school, if necessary. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

21.06.2002

Index: Yes

Website : Yes

kst.

To:

1.The Manager and Correspondent

M.D.Elementary School

Marikuppam, P.R.Puram

Erumbi [via],

Chengai MGR District.

2.The District Educational Officer

Tiruvallur, Chengai MGR District.

3.The Director of Elementary

Education, College Road

Madras-6.

V.S.SIRPURKAR, J.

W.P.No.1127/1995

14.6.2002


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.