M. SOOSAIMANICKAM Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MADRAS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pursuant to the impugned termination order dated 06.10.1994 passed by the sixth respondent herein and quash the same.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he has worked as a Tamil Pandit under the sixth respondent for the past 26 years; that due to his ill -health, he could not attend the School from 27.8.1992 to 20.9.1992 and he applied for Medical Leave and also produced the Medical Fitness Certificate at the time of joining duty; that contrary to the Rules, the petitioner was directed by the sixth respondent to produce the Fitness Certificate from the Medical Board; that though he worked till 26.8.1992, his salary from August 1992 was not paid; that ultimately he joined duty on 25.9.1992, but his salary was not paid from 1.8.1992, in spite of his joining duty after the expiry of Medical Leave on 25.9.1992. Therefore, he filed a writ petition, in W.P. No.7111 of 1993 praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the salary due to him from 1.8.1992 till date and to pay the amount for the earned leave for the year 1992, with interest, which was ultimately dismissed by this Court on ground that this Court cannot interfere with the internal administration of the Minority Institutions; that thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ appeal in W.A. No.459 of 1994 and the same is pending.

(3.) The further averments of the writ petition are that after joining duty on 25.9.1992, the sixth respondent imposed false charges against the petitioner and hence he filed W.P.No.22291 of 1993 and this Court also granted stay of the punishment to be imposed alone; that he again went on medical leave from 19.12.1993 to 14.2.1994 and reported duty on 15.2.1994 with a Medical Fitness Certificate; that when he was about to sign the attendance, the sixth respondent herein prevented him from signing the attendance register and therefore, he made representations before respondents 2 to 5 and also preferred an appeal before the third respondent herein, but there was no response; that in the mean time, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 17.9.1994 and retired from service on 30.9.1994; that he sent an application to the sixth respondent for the settlement of his retirement benefits i.e. from 30.9.1994.