JUDGMENT :

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

This matter is taken up for hearing through Video-Conferencing.

1. The third defendant in OS No. 484 of 2015 has come up with this Second Appeal. Challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment of the Appellate Court made in AS No. 45 of 2018 reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and granting a decree for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to salary and other allowances at the rates fixed by the Sixth pay Commission and directing payment of pension on the basis of the pay and other allowances fixed on the basis of the Report of the Sixth Pay Commission.

2. The suit came to be filed seeking the above prayers on the ground that the third defendant, viz. the employer had agreed to pay salary and allowances as payable by the Government of Tamil Nadu from time to time. The plaintiff was appointed as a Post Graduate Physical Director on 18.06.1979 with a salary of Rs. 600/- per month. Upon completion of probation, he was made permanent with effect from 01.06.1981 on a pay scale of Rs. 600-30-750-35-890-40-1050.

3. From the date of confirmation his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 660/-. It is claimed that though the third respondent is an Unaided Minority Educational Institution, it has been paying salary to the teachers at rates on par with the salaries paid by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is also claimed that the contract of appointment also provided that the appointee is entitled to salary and other allowances at the rates fixed by the Government of Tamil Nadu from time to time. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, he would be entitled to salary, as per the recommendations of the Pay Commissions. Though the plaintiff attained the age of superannuation on 27.12.2008, he was allowed to continue in service till the close of the academic year on 31.05.2009.

4. As per the Report of the Sixth Pay Commission, the teachers became entitled to a higher salary with effect from 01.01.2006 notionally and with monetary benefit from 01.01.2007. Therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that he having retired on 31.05.2009, is entitled to the benefits of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and he is entitled to get pay and allowances from 01.01.2006 to 31.05.2009, as per the Sixth Pay Commission recommendation. Inasmuch as, the third defendant denied such entitlement, the plaintiff had come up with the above suit. The Consequential prayer that was sought for is mandatory injunction directing the third defendant to pay pension and gratuity to the plaintiff as per the revised scale of pay.

5. Though the Educational Authorities, viz. The Director of Matriculation School and The Inspector of Matriculation Schools were impleaded as defendants 1 and 2, since they had no control over the fiscal policies of the third defendant, they remained ex parte. The third defendant contested the suit. The main contention of the third defendant was that it being an Unaided Minority Institution, it cannot be compelled to pay salary and allowances on par with the Government teachers. Reliance was placed on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with reference to the financial autonomy of such Unaided Minority Institutions. The claim of the plaintiff that the contract provided for payment of the same salary as payable to Government Teachers was also specifically denied. It was also pleaded that the suit filed in the year 2014 is hopelessly barred by limitation, since the plaintiff retired even on 31.05.2009. The parties went to trial on the above pleadings.

6. At trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and produced Exhibits A1 to A8. One Thomas Sundar, Assistant Headmaster was examined as DW-1 and Ex. B1 was marked.

7. The Trial Court upon a consideration of the evidence on record concluded that a Teacher of an Unaided Minority Institution is not entitled to claim salary on par with a Government School Teacher as of right. The learned Trial Judge further concluded that the suit filed three years after