D NAGAMUTHU Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THANJAVURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein challenges the judgment of the learned signal Judge dismissing his writ petition whereby he had claimed regularisation of his service and other benefits. THE learned single Judge took the view that, since in the earlier writ petition this Court had not granted relief, the petitioner could not have claimed that relief by way of a fresh writ petition. It will be necessary for us to state a few facts to appreciate the controversy involved herein.

(2.) THE petitioner was a teacher in the respondent school called N. S. Krishnan Aided Elementary School, Kattukottai Karur. This school is an elementary school and is receiving 100% grants. THE petitioner was suspended on account of few charges on 23-3-1978. A charge sheet was served upon him on 22-4-1978. After the enquiry was over a permission was sought from the concerned authority in the Education Department of his dismissal. However the said approval was declined by the District Educational Officer. It seems that against that order, an appeal came to be entertained by the Chief Educational Officer, who after holding some enquiry granted the approval on 2-1-1979. Against this order of granting the approval and resultant termination on the basis thereof, the petitioner filed C.M.A. No. 25 of 1979 before the Sub-Court, Thanjavur. However that appeal came to be dismissed by the Sub-Judge by an order dated 7-5-1980. THE order of the Chief Educational Officer and the confirming order passed by the learned Sub-Judge came to be challenged by way of writ petition No. 5429 of 1980 in September, 1980. THE writ petition pended for six long years and was ultimately allowed on 22-7-1986.

(3.) THE learned Government pleader further says that the petitioner would not be entitled to the other benefits also as those benefits have not been granted to him in the earlier judgment. Before considering the rival claims we must observe that the petitioner's demand is on two aspects. (i) THE backwages for the period that he was deprived of his service, and (ii) THE regularisation of his service which would entitle him to get the other benefits including the increased salary and also the increased pension.