BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10/04/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.10318 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.11028 of 2005 and W.V.M.P.No.28 of 2006 V.Arokyam .... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Correspondent, R.C.Primary School, Silukkuvarpatty Post, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District. 2.The Additional Assistant Educational Officer, Nilakottai, Dindigul District. .... Respondent PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service till the end of the Academic year 2005-2006, i.e, till 31.05.2006 in the 1st respondent school on reemployment terms with all the benefits and to grant such other and further reliefs. !For Petitioner .... Mr.K.Vellaisamy ^For 2nd Respondent .... Mr.K.V.Vijayakumar, Special Government Pleader. For 1st Respondent .... Mr.V.Kasinathan :ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed for a direction against the respondents to
permit the petitioner to continue in service till the end of the academic year
2005-2006 namely till 31.05.2006 in the first respondent school on reemployment
terms and also to confer all benefits.
3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined as a Teacher in
the year 1973 in the R.C.Primary School in Nilakottai Taluk functioning under
the R.C.management. The petitioner was promoted as Headmaster and worked as
Headmaster from 1999 in the first respondent school till he has attained the age
of superannuation namely, 31.08.2005. The first respondent school is an aided
school. Since the age of retirement by superannuation of the petitioner falls
on 31.08.2005 which is the middle of the academic year, the petitioner is
entitled to continue till the end of the academic year as per the G.O.Ms.No.1360
dated 25.08.1972 on reemployment basis and since the petitioner was fit enough
and there was no disciplinary proceedings of any sort. The petitioner has sent
an application along with medical fitness certificate dated 08.08.2005 for the
purpose of reemployment till the end of the academic year namely 31.05.2006.
Instead of the heeding to the request, the first respondent has relieved the
petitioner on 31.08.2005 by issuing a relieving order.
4. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition which was filed in September 2005 for the purpose of direction against
the respondents to continue the petitioner in services till the end of the
academic year 2005-2006 namely 31.05.2006 with all benefits on reemployment
terms. The petitioner has raised the legal issue that as per the government
order, teachers working in the aided schools who retire in the middle of the
academic year are permitted to continue till the end of the academic year on the
reemployment basis. Whileso, the petitioner has been denied the said right and
therefore, it is arbitrary and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. The first respondent has failed in its legal duty to follow the due
process of law in not allowing the petitioner to continue in service. This
Court while admitting the writ petition has also passed an order dated
07.12.2005 granting interim direction directing the respondents to permit the
petitioner to continue in service in the first respondent school till the
academic year of 2005-2006 is over namely, till 31.05.2006.
5.Even though, the respondent has not filed any counter affidavit,
Mr.V.Kasinathan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent apart from
the learned Special Government Pleader have argued on behalf of the respondents.
6. Mr.K.Vellaisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that apart from the fact that as per the Government order the petitioner
is entitled as a matter of right to continue in service on the reemployment
basis after the date of superannuation till the end of the academic year namely
31.05.2006, the conduct of the first respondent in not allowing the petitioner
to continue to work beyond 30.08.2005 is arbitrary and illegal.
7. In the circumstance that the petitioner is fit to work and there is
absolutely no proceeding pending against the petitioner and on the other hand
the merit certificate has been issued to the petitioner recognising his service
as a teacher his right to continue is legally permissible. The learned counsel
would also submit that even before the date of his superannuation which was on
31.08.2005, the petitioner has applied along with medical fitness certificate on
08.08.2005 itself which has not denied by the respondents. On the other hand,
the learned counsel placing reliance on the last pay certificate issued by the
first respondent, counter signed by the second respondent which is in the
following terms:
” LAST PAY CERTIFICATE
1.Last pay certificate of Thiru.V.Arockyam, Primary School Headmaster,
R.C.Primary School, Silukkuvarpatty.
2.He will be paid and inclusive of following rate of or pay. Pay …
Rs.8,300/-
3.He will retire on 31.08.2005, and will be allowed to continue in service
on re-employment from 01.09.2005 to 31.05.2006. His re-employment pay fixed at
Rs.4,295/-
4.Details of recoveries to be made : Nil.
Sd/- Sd/- Correspondent Additional R.C.Primary School Elementary Educational Silukuvarpatti Officer Nilakottai.
8. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner having
admitted that the petitioner will be permitted to continue in service on
reemployment basis from 01.09.2005- 31.05.2006 there was absolutely no reason to
deny the same. The learned counsel would rely upon the interim order passed by
this Court as I have stated earlier.
9. On the other hand, Mr.V.Kasinathan, learned counsel for the first
respondent would vehemently contend that the petitioner has not taken any steps
for the purpose of proving that he is fit and he has gone out of employment even
on 31.08.2005 and therefore, unless the petitioner makes an application with a
conduct certificate from the management there was no question of reemployment.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the
learned counsel for the respondents and perused the entire records.
11. At the outset, the law is well settled in respect of the reemployment
relating to the teachers who retired in the middle of the academic year that
they are entitled to continue till the end of the academic year which was a
policy enunciated by the Government for the benefit of the students in having
continuity of their education. In the present case, while the petitioner has
specifically stated that even on 08.08.2005 merely 23 days before his date of
his superannuation and has produced the medical fitness certificate along with a
petition claiming a right of reemployment, which fact has not been denied by the
respondent at any point of time. Therefore, the contention of the learned
counsel for the first respondent as if the petitioner has not taken any steps
for the purpose of claiming reemployment has absolutely no basis at all.
12. It is ridiculous to say that the petitioner who has been working under
the first respondent school must obtain a conduct certificate from the first
respondent for the purpose of claiming the reemployment right and produce the
same to the 1st respondent. On the other hand, it is the mandatory duty on the
part of the management namely the first respondent to see that the petitioner is
provided that reemployment on the basis of the fitness of the petitioner alone.
It is relevant because the reemployment is a policy of the Government. In this
case, the first respondent being the aided school is not going to lose anything
inasmuch as the Government is going to pay the same.
13. There is one other circumstance also. By the reemployment till the end
of the academic year it is not as if the first respondent management cannot fill
up the vacancy. Astonishingly, in this case, the first respondent as well as
the second respondent have categorically admitted in the certificate issued by
them as I have elicited above that the petitioner will be allowed to continue
in service or reemployment from 01.09.2005 to 31.05.2006. Even they have fixed
the pay for reemployment at the rate of Rs.4,295/-.
14. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, apart from the
application of the legal issue, I am of the considered view that the petitioner
is certainly entitled for the reemployment till 31.05.2006 and the respondents
are liable to pay the salary to the petitioner as fixed on the reemployment
basis from 01.09.2005 till 31.05.2006.
15. In view of the same, the writ petition stands allowed. There is no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. and W.V.M.P. are also
closed.
sms
To
1.The Correspondent,
R.C.Primary School,
Silukkuvarpatty Post,
Nilakottai Taluk,
Dindigul District.
2.The Additional Assistant
Educational Officer,
Nilakottai,
Dindigul District.