AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Regupathi, J.—This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 28.2.2003 made in W.P. No. 10192 of 1996, wherein the appellant
college was directed to settle the monetary benefits in terms of salary and other emoluments to the first respondent till the end of the academic year
1996-97, as he was not permitted to avail the benefit of re-employment, as conferred in G.O.Ms. No. 281 dated 13.2.1981, wherein it is made
clear that the teacher, who attained 58 years in the middle of the academic year shall be permitted to continue till the end of that academic year.
The right to continue on re-employment till the end of academic year conferred on the teachers working in the schools either Government or
private, both minority or non-minority, has already been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1179 of 1993 (S. Sundaram v.
Secretary, C.S.I. Diocese of Madras), and the SLP preferred against the same was also dismissed. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court has
been consecutively followed by this Court in R. Muthukrishnan v. The Secretary, Aided Middle School, Korranattu, Karupur, Kumbakonam and
The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tanjavur vide 1998 W.L.R.77.
3.1. In S. Sundaram v. Secretary, C.S.I. Diocese of Madras W.A. No. 1179 of 1993 case, where the teacher was not permitted to avail the
benefit of re-employment after his superannuation, the Division Bench directed the management and authorities to pay monetary benefits in terms of
salary payable to him till the end of the academic year.
3.2. The only contention made on behalf of the appellant/Management is that the first respondent had not even made a request for re-employment
after superannuation and therefore, he cannot make any complaint against the appellant/Management. But, similar contention was rejected by the
Division Bench in the Sundaram''s case, cited supra, whereunder it is held as follows:
...We must point out here that as per the Government Order, there is no question of any teacher asking for continuation. The Government Order
specifically states that the institutions are to continue them till the end of academic year, provided the teacher satisfies the three conditions laid
down in the Government Order, G.O.Ms.452, dated 24/03/1970, which has been followed in subsequent Government Orders.
3.3. In the above case, where the teacher was not permitted to avail the benefits of re-employment after superannuation, the Division Bench further
held as hereunder:
...It is brought to our notice that in some of the cases, the teachers have worked for a certain period and thereafter, they are not continued.
Therefore, we direct that the Management shall pay the salary to all the teachers in question from the date of superannuation of each of the
teachers till the end of that academic year in which they attained the age of superannuation, less the salary, if any, already paid for any part of the
period. The State Government shall also sanction the salary bills prepared as directed above, and forwarded by the schools.
The decision of the Division Bench rendered in the Sundaram''s case, cited supra, squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
We are therefore of the considered opinion that unless the teacher is found unfit medically or on account of his or her conduct, he/she is entitled
to continue till the end of the academic year.
In that view of the matter, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge, directing the appellant to
settle the monetary benefits in terms of salary and other emoluments to the first respondent till the end of the academic year 1996-97.
Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. The appellant management is directed to settle the dues within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of this order, as per the Government Orders and to recover the same from the concerned authorities, as the appellant institution is an aided college.
Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.