F AROKIAMARY Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NORTH CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the order made in W.P.No.1703 of 2009 dated 16.9.2009. The appellant is the Writ Petitioner and the challenge in the Writ Petition was to an order passed by the second respondent Management dated 10.8.2009, in and by which the Management denied subsistence allowance to the appellant during the period of her suspension.

(2.) The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Appeal are that the appellant was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the second respondent School during 1983. The Management by an order dated 16.3.2009 placed the appellant under suspension based on certain allegations. Subsequently charge memo dated 18.6.2009 was served on the appellant containing seven articles of charges and the third respondent was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the domestic enquiry. While the domestic enquiry was in progress, the appellant submitted a representation on 6.7.2009 requesting for payment of subsistence allowance, apart from seeking other reliefs. The request made by the appellant for subsistence allowance was rejected by an order dated 10.8.2009, which was challenged in the Writ Petition. The learned Judge, by the impugned order disposed of the Writ petition, directing the second respondent Management to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and further gave an opportunity to the Management to make representation to the authorities to get the allowance reimbursed from the Department. Not being satisfied with the direction issued in the Writ Petition, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the stand taken by the Management is that Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, (herein after referred to as the 'Rules') are not applicable to them since they are an aided minority institution and this Court in an earlier Judgment has quashed Rule 17 of the Rules in so far as it was made applicable to aided minority institutions and therefore in the absence of any Rule, the appellant is entitled to full salary during the period of suspension.