Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.VIJAYAKUMAR
V.Padmavathy – Appellant
Versus
Joint Director of School Education – Respondent
ORDER :
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent on 13.07.2021 wherein the request of the petitioner for payment of salary and other monetary benefits for working as Headmistress in the fourth respondent school has been rejected.
(A).Facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows:
2.The fourth respondent school was granted temporary recognization by the first respondent on 07.06.1988 and the petitioner was appointed as an Headmistress of the said school on 13.08.1988. The petitioner was removed from service by the school management on 01.08.1990. The petitioner had preferred an appeal before the first respondent under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of maintainability on 12.01.1993.
3.Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal in C.M.A.No.6 of 1993 and the appeal also came to be dismissed on 09.12.1994. Challenging the dismissal of C.M.A.No.6 of 1993, the petitioner has preferred W.P.No.4445 of 1995 and the said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 30.10.2002
The court clarified the employment status of the petitioner and directed verification of salary arrears computation, emphasizing the need for proper documentation.
A teacher's claim for salary during unauthorized absence must consider prior court rulings confirming her appointment rights.
The principle of 'No Work, No Pay' cannot be invoked when an employee is willing to work but is kept out due to the actions of the employer, which were ultimately declared illegal by judicial orders.
The Petitioner is entitled to backwages and benefits from 17.01.1998 to 04.02.2010 due to unjustified non-payment and lack of substantiated misconduct.
The court affirmed that a teacher's continuity of service must be upheld unless substantiated by evidence; the withholding of salary without due process constitutes a violation of rights.
The court affirmed the principle that school staff must receive due salary and benefits unless proven otherwise, emphasizing continuity of service without interruption or unjust denial.
The court reaffirmed that judicial decisions regarding employment rights must be respected, and that grounds for termination or denial of appointment must be substantiated with valid evidence, partic....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
