Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1484
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.K. Sasidharan, P.D. Audikesavalu, JJ.
C.M. Ayarin Baby - Appellant
Versus
The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai & Others - Respondent
Case No : W.A. No. 385 of 2019
Decided On : 15-02-2019
For the Appellant :C. Johnson, Advocate.
For the Respondents: C. Munusamy, Special Government Pleader.
Headnote:
Union stands cancelled - Assistant Elementary Educational Officer - Relieve her from service - Burden to pay to employee/workman - Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai by proceedings verified Teachers Training Certificate of Appellant and reported that Kerala Teachers Training Certificate held by Appellant has been evaluated as equivalent to Secondary Grade Teacher Training Certificate of Tamil Nadu - Said fact was recorded by Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in order application was treated as closed – Held, Cases in which competent Court or Tribunal finds that employer has acted in gross violation of statutory provisions and/or principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing employee or workman then Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages - In such cases superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of Constitution and interfere with award passed by Labor Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on entitlement of employee/workman to get full back wages or employer’s obligation to pay same - Courts must always keep in view that in cases of wrongful / illegal termination of service wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is employee/workman and there is no justification to give a premium to employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages - In light of aforesaid discussion court hold that Appellant is deemed to be in continuous service as Secondary Grade Teacher from date of her initial appointment in service on onwards reckoning her seniority from that date with all consequential monetary benefits flowing there from including salary payable for period - Respondents are directed to compute monetary benefits and fix seniority of Appellant and communicate the decision taken thereon to Appellant along with a working-sheet amount computed and found payable to Appellant shall be paid to her expeditiously and a report of compliance in that regard shall be filed before the Registrar of this Court by - Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
P.D. Audikesavalu, J.
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, praying to set aside the order in W.P. No. 10073 of 2005 dated 22.06.2010 and to grant the relieves as prayed for in W.P. No. 10073 of 2005.)
The intra-Court Appeal arises out of the order dated 22.06.2010 in W.P. No. 10073 of 2005 passed by the Learned Judge of this Court.
2. The chronological sequence of events leading to the filing of this Writ Appeal are given below:-
(i) The Appellant was selected as Secondary Grade Teacher by proceedings No. 522/AA2/94 dated 18.07.1995 by the Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board and she was posted at Panchayat Union School, Veerappatti, Annavasal Union by proceedings Na. Ka. No. 6361/AA3/95 dated 25.07.1995 by the District Elementary Educational Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'DEDO' for short), Pudukkottai.
(ii) The DEDO, Pudukkottai by proceedings Na. Ka. No. 6361/AA3/95 dated 12.02.1996 informed the Petitioner that it was found on evaluation of her Teacher's Training Certificate obtained from Kerala that she had not secured 50% marks each of the two years of the course and as such, her certificate cannot be evaluated and resultantly, her appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher at Veerappatti Panchayat Union School, Annavasal Union stands cancelled. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer was further directed to relieve her from service. The Appellant challenged the cancellation of her appointment in O.A. No. 1598 of 1996 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.
(iii) The Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai by proceedings Rc. No. 9460/C2/96 dated 04.08.1997 verified the Teacher's Training Certificate of the Appellant and reported that the Kerala Teacher's Training Certificate held by the Appellant has been evaluated as equivalent to Secondary Grade Teacher Training Certificate of Tamil Nadu. The said fact was recorded by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in the order dated 25.09.1998 in O.A. No. 1598 of 1996 and the application was treated as closed.
(iv) The Appellant was thereafter selected by the Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the Tamil Nadu Elementary Educational Sub-ordinate Services by proceedings Na. Ka. No. 2725/AA3/96 dated 25.10.1999 and posted at the Panchayat Union Middle School, Perujunai, Annavasal Union.
(v) Later, the Appellant made a representation dated 09.03.2000 to the Director of Elementary Education that she had been wrongly kept out of service during the period from 13.02.1996 till reinstatement by order dated 25.10.1999 and hence, that period should be regularized restoring her seniority in service with consequential monetary benefits arising therefrom, which was followed by representations dated 07.07.2000 and 27.01.2005.
(vi) Since there was no response to the same, the Appellant filed W.P. No. 10073 of 2005 before this Court seeking a direction to the Respondents to pay her salary for the period from 31.07.1995 to 04.11.1999 on the basis of evaluation of her Teacher's Training Certificate.
(vii) When W.P. No. 10073 of 2005 came up for admission on 24.03.2005, an interim order was passed in W.P.M.P. No. 10910 of 2005 directing the Respondents to consider the representation of the Appellant dated 09.03.2000 seeking salary as Secondary Grade Teacher from 31.07.1995 to 04.11.1999.
(viii) The Director of Elementary Education by order Na. Ka. No. 2357/L 3.3.2005 dated 10.10.2005 held that the Appellant was entitled to salary only for the period from 31.07.1995 to 12.02.1996, and had conspicuously not stated anything relating to the claim made by her for salary from 12.02.1996 till she was reinstated in service by order dated 25.10.1999.
(ix) The Learned Judge, who heard the Writ Petition was not inclined to accede to the claim made by the Appellant for salary for the period from 31.07.1995 to 04.11.1999 and in the order dated 07.02.2011 in W.P. No. 10073 of 2005, held as follows:-
"3. The Lea
