Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER versus R.KARUNAKARAN

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Chief Educational Officer v. R.Karunakaran - W.A.(MD)No.243 of 2006 [2007] RD-TN 65 (4 January 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 04/01/2007

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE DHARMA RAO ELIPE

and

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA

W.A.(MD)No.243 of 2006

and

W.A.M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2006

1.The Chief Educational Officer,

Pudukottai.

2.The District Educational Officer,

Aranthanki, Puthukottai District.

3.The Director of School Education,

College Road, Chennai 600 006. .. Appellants. Vs

R.Karunakaran .. Respondent The Writ Appeal was filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 22.6.2006 in W.P.(MD)No.7606/2005. For Appellants ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu, SplG.P. For Respondent ... Mr.K.Vellaiswamy

:ORDER



(Order of the Court was made by DHARMA RAO ELIPE, J.) The above writ appeal was filed by the School Education Department,Government of Tamilnadu against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.7606/2005 dated 22.06.2006.

2.The brief facts of the case of the writ petitioner are that his case was not considered for extension of the period of retirement from 31.7.2005 to 31.5.2006, as per G.O.Ms.No.1643 dated 27.10.1988, on the ground that he suffered the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect as per the order of the Director of School Education dated 25.6.2001 for dereliction of duty and hence the Department came to the conclusion that his conduct and character as Teacher were not satisfactory and therefore, by an order dated 24.3.2005, the Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai, refused to extend the period of his employment from the date of superannuation i.e. 31.7.2005 till 31.5.2006 based on the above said G.O. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.7605 of 2005.

3.The writ petition was taken up for consideration by the learned Single Judge and allowed the writ petition on the ground that the interim order granted by this Court in WPMP No.8249 of 2005 dated 23.8.2005 was not implemented by the appellants/respondents. Eventhough the learned Judge also concluded that the above said G.O.Ms.No.1643 was passed only for the benefit of the students as otherwise there will be a gap in the teaching faculty, if a teacher retires in the middle of the academic year with a direction to the respondents to extend all the benefits to the writ petitioner as if he was re-employed from the date of his age of superannuation viz. 31.7.2005 till 31.5.2006, with all monetary and other benefits, there is no force

in the reliance placed on the above said Government Order to prevent the petitioner from getting the benefits to which he is entitled in accordance with the scheme of re-employment. Further, the order of the learned Single Judge giving liberty to the Government to recover the monetary benefits granted to the writ petitioner from the salary of the first respondent who has not obeyed the order of this Court, is not sustainable.

4.Aggrieved over the order passed in the writ petition, the School Education Department filed the above writ appeal contending that the learned single Judge failed to consider the scope of G.O.MS.No.1643 Education Department dated 27.10.1988 in its letter and spirit that re-employment is not a matter of right as claimed by the writ petitioner and it is only considered by discretion weighing the character, conduct and efforts of the petitioner. Since the writ petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of his annual increment for six months and the said punishment was not set aside by the competent authority, the authorities concerned came to the conclusion that in view of G.O.Ms.No.1643 Education Department dated 27.10.1988, the writ petitioner was not qualified for re-employment. The learned Special Government Pleader further contended that the learned single Judge ought not to have ordered recovery of monetary benefits extended to the writ petitioner, from the first respondent for not implementing the interim order of this Court which is arbitrary and the first respondent with bonafide

intention discharged his duties and refused to re-employ the writ petitioner. Therefore the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7606 of 2005 dated 22.6.2006 is liable to be set aside.

5.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the punishment imposed against the writ petitioner under Rule 17-A of Disciplinary and Appeal Rules would not affect his claim for re-employment under the above said G.O. Moreover the writ petitioner also challenged the order of punishment dated 25.3.2001,before the competent Court in Original Application No.5411 of 2001 and further reiterated the contentions raised before the learned single Judge that G.O.Ms.No.1643 Education Department dated 27.10.1988 is only for the benefit of the students to avoid the gap in the teaching faculty. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner submits that the order of the learned single Judge is sustainable.

6.We have carefully heard the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/respondents in the writ petition and the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner and gone through the materials placed on record as well as G.O.Ms.No.1643 Education Department dated 27.10.1988, under which both the parties are relying on, which is passed based on G.O.Ms.No.249 Education dated

9.2.1959. While permitting the continuance of the teachers in service on re- employment terms on their attainment of the age of superannuation in the middle of the school year, following pre-requisite conditions have been prescribed: "1.The Character and the Conduct of the teacher should be satisfactory.

2.They should be physically fit to continue in service."

7.The present G.O.Ms.No.1643 Education Department dated 27.10.1988 was issued as per the proposal submitted by the Director of School Education dated 31.7.1987. When it was brought to the notice of the Government that in respect of School Education Department, more than 25 of the pension proposals are being sent to the Accountant-General for settlement in a year, to avoid delay on the part of the teachers who are due to retire in preferring their claims and in view of the fact that almost all the teachers are interested in getting their claims and in view of the fact that almost all the teachers are interested in getting re-employment, the Director of School Education has suggested to incorporate another condition viz. that the pension papers should be submitted atleast one year before the date of retirement as the third pre-requisite condition for re-employment. Accordingly, the Government passed the above said G.O.

8.But, actually, the claim has to be made for re-employment as per G.O.Ms.No.249 Education, dated 9.2.1959 and not under G.O.Ms.No.1643 Education Department dated 27.10.1988, under which a condition was imposed that the pension application of teachers working under all managements under the control of Education Department including public sector institutions on re-employment terms on their attainment of superannuation in the middle of the school year should be sent to the Accountant-General at least one year before the date of their retirement is prescribed as a pre-requisite conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.249 Education dated 9.2.1959.

9.Therefore, a condition is prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1643 dated 27.10.1988 that the pension papers has to be sent one year prior to the date of retirement. Any how the writ petitioner's date of retirement was 31.7.2005 and if re- employment was given to him he might have retired on 31.5.2006. But due to certain irregularities committed by him which ended in imposition of punishment of stoppage of increment for six month by an order dated 25.3.2001, the appellants deem it thought that it is not fit to extend the benefit of re- employment to the writ petitioner since his employment in service was detriment to the interest of the School Education Department. Therefore, they refused to extend the benefit under the above said G.O.Ms.No.249 Education Department dated 9.2.1959. Moreover, the authorities concerned in the Department are the best persons to assess or to take a decision with regard to re-employment of the writ petitioner in the School Education Department and that we cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the Administrators that too for re- employing when the conduct of the petitioner is not good more so when the petitioner who attained the age of superannuation on 31.7.2005, till the end of the academic year viz. 31.5.2006. Further we are unable to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the reasons given by the learned Single Judge that the G.O.Ms.No.1643 dated 27.10.1988 was passed mainly with an intention not to retire the teacher in the middle of the academic year and to send the pensionary benefits one year before the date of retirement and that the G.O. was issued in the benefit of the students but the conduct of the teacher is more important to consider for re- employment as per the Government Orders. Therefore, it cannot be held as illegal when the writ petitioner claimed the similar benefit under the G.O., when it was negatived by the appellants.

10.From the above discussion, we hold that to seek the benefit under the above two Government Orders, the satisfaction of conditions incorporated in the above Government Orders is more important to get re-employment in the educational institutions, as the Appellants on verification of records of the writ petitioner came to a conclusion that he is not a fit person to be re- employed, we cannot take a different view in the interest of educational institutions.

11.For all the above reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed in the circumstances. No cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. rpa


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.