Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S.P.RUBAN versus DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S.P.Ruban v. Director of Elementary Education - W.P. No.5477 of 2005 [2007] RD-TN 2903 (5 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 05.09.2007

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM

W.P. No.5477 of 2005

and

WPMP. No.18808 of 2006

S.P.Ruban ..Petitioner Vs.

1. The Director of Elementary Education

College Road

Chennai 6.

2. The District Elementary Education Officer,

Tirunelveli.

3. The Assistant Elementary Educational officer, Vallioor Range

Vallioor.

4. Hindu Primary School

Rep. By its Manager

Pillaiyar Kudierrupur School Street,

Jacob Puram Post

Tirunelveli District 627 114. ..Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus as stated within For Petitioners : Mr.S.Elamurugan For Respondents : Mrs.Shanmugavalli Sekar, Government Advocate(Edn.) O R D E R



Seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus for a direction to the first respondent to issue suitable orders directing the respondents 2 and 3 to release the salary payable to the petitioner from May 2003 upto date and to continue to pay the same to the petitioner for the post of Headmaster in the 4th respondent School.

2. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused,.

4. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster in the fourth respondent School from 1.4.1998 was approved by the second respondent, the competent authority by proceedings dated 21.4.1998 and the salary was also released by the second respondent for disbursement and accordingly the same was disbursed till April, 2003. While so, based on G.O.155 dated 3.10.2002, the first respondent issued a general circular dated 20.11.2002 to the subordinate education authorities including the second respondent to the effect that the teachers who were with B.Ed qualification appointed against Secondary Grade Post and whose appointment were not approved and to whom the salary has been paid should be withheld for recovery. Following the same, the salary of the petitioner was withheld from May, 2003. Under such circumstances, the above writ petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions viz., G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 3.10.2002 is not applicable to the petitioner herein, since the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the second respondent on 21.4.1998 and hence the said G.O. could not be applied. Secondly, in the instant case, the salary has been paid from the time onwards continuously, but it has been withheld from May, 2003. The validity of the G.O. was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court dated 2.4.2004 and allowed to the limited extent of directing that no recovery be made from person from whom grants have already been paid and salary released. Under such circumstances, the writ petitionhas got to be ordered.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the third respondent, Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Vallioor Range has made recommendation to the second respondent by communication dated 17.10.2005 for disbursement of the salary of the petitioner and now it is in the hands of the second respondent and orders are awaiting.

7. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered opinion that while there was a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court declaring G.O.155 dated 3.10.2002 as valid, but at the same time there was a direction issued, no recovery should be made from the salary already released or in respect of the persons from whom grants have already been paid and salary released. Under such circumstances, there is no justification for the respondents in withholding the salary of the petitioner from May, 2003 till this day. Now it is brought to the notice of this Court that the third respondent has made recommendation to the second respondent on 17.10.2005 and it is pending orders in the hands of the second respondent. In the above situation and in appraisement of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be suffice to issue a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the third respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass suitable orders thereby releasing the salary of the petitioner, without any further delay, since the delay for the period of four years is noticed.

8. With the above obervation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.Consequently, WP.MP.No.18808 of 2006 is closed. VJY To

1. The Director of Elementary Education,

College Road,

Chennai 6.

2. The District Elementary Education Officer, Tirunelveli.

3. The Assistant Elementary Educational officer, Vallioor Range,

Vallioor.

4. The Manager,

Hindu Primary School,

Pillaiyar Kudierrupur School Street,

Jacob Puram Post,

Tirunelveli District 627 114.


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.