IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 22.01.2011 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.RAJA W.P. No.26604 of 2010 and M.P. No.1 of 2010 Arutkodi Aided Middle School, Arulnagar, Thiruvennai Nallur, rep. By its Manager/Correspondent N.Gnanaguru. ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai-6. 2. The District Elementary Education Officer, Villupuram District. 3. The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvennai Nallur, Villupuram District. ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief as stated thereunder. For petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mr.S.Sivashanmugam, Government Advocate. O R D E R
Arutkodi Aided Middle School, Arul Nagar, Thiruvennai Nallur, rep. by its Correspondent has filed the above writ petition, challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka. No.5254/A4/10, dated 10.11.2010, in and by which, citing certain special circumstances, the school was brought under direct subsidy and direct payment of salary to the Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of the School was ordered..
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, for the petitioner-school that was started in the year 1954, permanent recognition was granted by the competent authorities. He further points out that, in respect of the petitioner-school where 502 students are studying, in total, there are 12 sanctioned posts of the Teaching Staff including 1 BT Headmaster, 1 BT Teacher, 9 Secondary Grade Teachers and 1 full-time Craft Teacher, and out of the same, four posts fell vacant. The Tamil Pandit in the School came to be promoted as Headmaster on 21.02.2002, whereupon, the Management requested for conversion of the vacant post of Tamil Pandit as B.Ed Graduate Teacher and sought permission to fill up the said post by letter dated 27.03.2002. Subsequently, one Krishnabai was selected and appointed as B.T. Assistant on 05.06.2002 and on such appointment being rejected by order, dated 07.02.2007, passed by the first respondent, the school filed W.P. No.26295 of 2007 and by order, dated 13.10.2008, the order passed by the first respondent was set aside and a direction was issued to the said authority to approve the appointment of Krishnabai from the date of appointment with all consequential benefits. By another order, dated 10.12.2008, passed in W.P. No.26863 of 2007, a direction was issued by this Court to the 2nd respondent to consider the proposal of the school dated 13.03.2007 for approval of appointment of one Selvakumar as B.T. Assistant (Maths). Complaining non-compliance of both the orders by the Authorities, the School initiated contempt proceedings, whereupon, the respondents approved both the appointments by proceedings dated 12.01.2010. In that background, the authorities ordered for direct payment of salaries on 11.01.2010 and prior to such order, a detailed reply was submitted on 17.11.2009 for the show-cause notice issued. Without considering the same, the 2nd respondent passed orders for direct payment, therefore, the school submitted the representations dated 25.02.2010 and 29.04.2010 requesting to revoke the order of direct payment but in vain. Considering the subsequent representations submitted, by letter dated 05.07.2010, the 3rd respondent recommended for revocation of direct payment, whereupon, the 2nd respondent, by proceedings dated 03.08.2010, revoked the order of direct payment and directed the 3rd respondent to handover the charges to the Secretary of the School. Subsequently, by letter dated 30.08.2010, the 3rd respondent forwarded the service records of all the staff members to the school and those records are maintained by the Management.
3. Pointing out the above transactions between the School Management and the Authorities, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent insisted upon the petitioner to withdraw the contempt proceedings initiated against the Department in Contempt Petition Nos.1114 and 1115 of 2009 and since the petitioner did not succumb to the pressure as arrears of salary was yet to be disbursed to the teachers, obsessed with ulterior motives, the said Authority has passed the impugned order. According to him, if the petitioner-school is allowed to be harassed at the hands of the authorities by way of direct payment to the staff members, not only the administration would be badly affected but also the educational interests of the students would be put to risk; therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 10.11.2010 passed beyond the scope and ambit of Section 53A(2) of the Tamil Nadu Private School Regulation Act are liable to be set aside as a clear case of abuse of official capacity and power.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, in an endeavour to establish the validity of the impugned order, would submit that the Authorities were often receiving complaints from the staff members about non-payment of monetary and other benefits. While citing instances of mis-management, he pointed out that the Pongal Bonus for the year 2009 was not paid till 05.10.2010 despite issuance of the cheque on 05.08.2010 in the name of a Teacher by name G.Sivakumar. Further, the details of Earned Leave surrendered by the women teachers from the date of joining duty was not submitted for encashment and such lapse is well established by the entries in the Service Registers. In the case of a woman Teacher by name Nalini, salary was not paid for the period she underwent Medical Leave during 2007 and in such instance, the Management was admonished to take steps for securing the salary for the period underwent on medical leave and also the proceeds payable towards the Earned Leave surrendered by her. However, till 02.11.2010, no step was taken by the School and such aspect was confirmed during inspection of the school on 03.11.2010. It is further pointed out that the Management did not even co-operate with the authorities in the matter of securing service registers for the newly appointed employees, thereby, a conducive atmosphere for smooth administration of the school was not seen to be prevalent. Moreover, while addressing letters to the authorities, the Management cited irrelevant references and in respect of the instances of mismanagement, no explanation was offered. Thus, taking note of the exigency arisen in which it was felt that the educational interest of the students would be put at peril due to belated payment of salary and non-payment of monetary benefits to the Teachers, the authorities after affording all reasonable opportunities to the Management to explain and rectify the lapses, ultimately, on the total failure on the part of the Management in taking corrective measures, decided to order for direct payment only in the overall educational interest of the students. Thus, according to the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, there is no scope for interference at all.
5. It is admittedly true that complaints were received by the authorities/respondents regarding non-payment of monetary benefits due to the staff members of the School. As highlighted by the learned Government Advocate, from the impugned order, it could be seen that the Pongal Bonus for the year 2009 could not be paid in time due to much belated encashment of the cheque issued; that entries regarding surrender of E.L. was not made in the Register and steps were not taken for encashment as reflected in the Service Register; that, in the case of a Teacher by name Nalini, salary was not paid for the period she underwent medical leave during 2007 and also the E.L. Surrender Encashment even after two years; that no meaningful and honest effort was taken by the Management despite admonition to correct the lapses; that there was total non co-operation on the part of the Management during inspection and enquiry regarding the grievance of the staff members and that in spite of the reasonable opportunities afforded, no explanation was received at the end of the Management. In that background, let this Court consider the case of the petitioner with reference to the relevant provisions in the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act. Section 27 of the said Act reads thus:-
The pay and allowances of any teacher or other person employed in any private school shall be paid on or before such day of every month, in such manner and by or through such authority, office or person, as may be prescribed.
Rule 19 of the Rules framed under the above Act provides that the procedure for payment of pay and allowances to teachers and other persons employed in private schools shall be as prescribed in Annexure III. Clause-I of the said Annexure contains the normal procedure regarding payment of pay and allowance and Clause II thereof provides that under special circumstances, the District Educational Officer concerned may make direct payments to the Headmaster of a school or to the teachers of a school. However, the provision does not define the scope of ‘special circumstances’ and in such a situation, the Court has to scrutinise as to whether there existed the special circumstances absolutely warranting an order for direct payment.
6. A careful perusal of the impugned order succinctly makes it clear that the Management habitually defaulted in procuring the monetary benefits due to the Staff Members which resulted in inflow of complaints to the authorities, as a result of which, the Management was suitably admonished to take appropriate steps to cure the lapses. Even during inspection and enquiries, the authorities could not get any co-operation from the management and not even proper explanation was received on the lapses pointed out and borne out by the records of the school itself. Undoubtedly, those circumstances weighed in the scales for ordering direct payment. It must be pointed out at this juncture that there is no vested right in the Management to receive subsidy from the State and in a given situation, where the aid/subsidy which is meant for the teachers is paid to them directly, the petitioner cannot be said to be deprived of any right by such act. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interests of the institution and that of the teachers are well served by the impugned order. Thus, when the special circumstances as adverted to in the impugned order justify the action taken by the 2nd respondent, this court does not find any flaw or illegality therein warranting interference by this Court.
7. Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
22.01.2011.
Index : yes Internet : yes JI. To 1. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai-6. 2. The District Elementary Education Officer, Villupuram District. 3. The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvennai Nallur, Villupuram District. T. RAJA, J. Pre Delivery Order in W.P. No.26604/10. 22.01.2011.