Court emphasized compliance with prior mandates for salary disbursement, clarifying that appointment in non-sanctioned posts does not eliminate rights established by previous rulings.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.3439m1/2018 dated 28.08.2018 passed by the fourth respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to approve the petitioner's appointment and disburse the salary and other monetary and terminal benefits in the light of the judgment in W.P.No. 415, 436 of 1989 dated 24.03.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.40 dated 04.03.2014 School Education Department within a time frame.

2.It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was appointed as Craft Teacher (Agriculture) in the fifth respondent School on 18.01.1988. He attained superannuation on 31.05.2010. The fifth respondent School is a Christian Minority Institution and which has been getting aid from the Government and the aid was given till 01.11.1987. Thereafter, the aid was stopped by the Government. Hence, several writ petitions were filed by the Management of the Minority Institutions before the Madras High Court and the fifth respondent has also filed W.P.No.425, 436 of 1989, which were allowed. The Government has taken the matter upto Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment of this Court and directed the State Government to disburse the salary to the employees of the Minority Institutions. The respondents 1 to 4 have not approved the appointment of the petitioner. The first respondent has passed a Government Order in G.O.(Ms.)No.271 dated 22.02.1990 and the sanction has accorded for the creation of certain temporary posts for the period upto 01.11.1989. The petitioner sent a representation dated 14.08.2014 to the respondents requesting to approve his appointment and disburse the arrears of salary and other benefits. The respondent did not consider the said representation and hence, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.16779 of 2014 before this Court, which was allowed on 28.03.2018 with a direction to the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation. Thereafter, the fourth respondent without considering the service records of the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 28.08.2018 rejecting his claim. Hence, the present writ petition.

3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that already G.O.(Ms)No.271 dated 22.02.1990 has been issued on the basis of the order passed by this Court in WMP.No.602 of 1989 in WP.(MD)No.415 & 436 of 1989 for creation of posts in the fifth respondent School. He would further submit that similarly placed persons' who were appointed in the fifth respondent school, appointments were approved and the fourth respondent did not furnish the documents referred in the order impugned. The petitioner has served 22 years without any salary and if the petitioner's service is not approved, he will not get any pension benefits.

4.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the sanction of the post of Craft Instructor (Agriculture) expired on 01.11.1987 and there is no continuity. The petitioner did not work in a sanctioned post and hence, the appointment of the petitioner in a non-sanctioned post is illegal. The learned Special Government Pleader also drew the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, particularly in paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit.

5.It is seen from the records that the fifth respondent School has come under the control of District Educational Officer, Thiruvattar, as per G.O.Ms.No.101, School Education Department dated 18.05.2018. The tr