S SOUNDARARAJAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as a Secondary Grade Assistant with the fifth respondent-School on 12-09-1990. After Summer holidays, the School was reopened on 01-07-1991 and the fifth respondent prevented the petitioner from attending the School on the ground that the petitioner had submitted his resignation. As against the oral prevention, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 9459 of 1991 before this Court wherein he was directed to file an appeal before the second respondent. The appeal was allowed on 27-09-1991 and the second respondent directed the 5th respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service; that the Management filed W. P. No. 14623 of 1991 against the order passed in the appeal, which was allowed and remitted back to the second respondent for a fresh consideration on the ground that no opportunity was given to the Management to put forth its contentions; that the second respondent allowed the appeal by his order dated 06-08-1992 directing the Management to reinstate the petitioner; that the Management filed a suit, in O. S. No. 690 of 1992 against the order of the second respondent, which was dismissed on 28-03-1994; that in the meanwhile, W. P. No. 9472 of 1992 was filed by the petitioner before this Court, which was dismissed directing the petitioner to raise all his pleas before the Civil Court; that the petitioner filed W. P. No. 14894 of 1994 praying for reinstatement and this Court disposed of this writ petition directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders in the revision petition, if any, filed by the Management before taking any action pursuant to the order of reinstatement dated 06-08-1992; that against this, a Writ Appeal No. 1129 of 1995 was filed by the petitioner wherein the Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 18-01-1996 directed the Management to reinstate the petitioner on or before 29-02-1996 in default of which the post should be transferred along with the petitioner; that as the Management did not reinstate the petitioner, the Authorities transferred the petitioner along with the post to Chidambaram Middle School, Chinnavenmani, Periyavenmani Post by the proceedings of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Trichy dated 06-03-1996; that the petitioner joined the Chidambaram Middle School on 18-03-1996 and made a representation dated 22-06-1996 to the Authorities for payment of salary which was not paid due to no fault on his part, during the period from 06-08-1992, the date on which the appeal was allowed by the second respondent; that since no action was taken on the representation made by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for the payment of back wages for the period from 01-07-1991 to 17-03-1996 which was not paid to him.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was put to great hardship for no fault on his part and the petitioner is very sincere, devoted and duty-bound to his profession and such a person should not be deprived of from what he is rightly entitled to; that the learned counsel relied on the following judgments to support his case that the petitioner was transferred along with his post and is entitled to full salary with backwages for the period he suffered from removal of service for no fault on his part. The learned counsel would also cite the following decisions: (1) S. SOUNDARARAJAN V. THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, MADRAS (1996 I CTC 275)In this judgment the Division Bench of this Court has held: if the third respondent does not comply with the above direction, the first respondent is directed to withdraw the sanctioned post which was held by the appellant, from the third respondent school, and allot the same to some other Government School where there is a vacancy and appoint the appellant in such a school where there is a vacancy along with the post. The first respondent should undertake this exercise if the appellant is not reinstated by the third respondent on or before 29. 2. 1996 and complete the exercise on or before 31. 3. 1996. (2) In K. MUTHU V. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, TRICHY (2005 I MLJ 143) this Court held as follows: the second respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all his backwages and attendant benefits and with continuity of service as though he has been serving in the second respondent Management all these days continuously from the date of his appointment till date.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that only after careful consideration of the materials placed on record the Authorities have ordered reinstatement of service of the petitioner by transferring the post to another School along with him and the delay that has occurred was only due to the negligence on the part of the fifth respondent-School. Hence the respondents 1 to 4 are not liable to pay the salary entitled to the petitioner and it is only the Management that is responsible to pay the back-wages.