A K RAMAMURTHY Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to insist them to pay the alleged earned leave surrender benefits to the 4th respondent against the G.O.Ms.No.1089 P&A.R, dated 01.11.1980 and for further orders.

(2.) THE petitioner School is a linguistic minority school and it is aided by Government. THE 4th respondent was the Head Master of the School. On account of disciplinary proceedings, his services were terminated 01.01.1978. Challenging the same, he filed Writ Petition before this Court. As per the order of the Hon"ble Supreme Court, dated 14.10.1988, he was reinstated in service as Head Master. THE fourth respondent filed a Writ Petition before this Court for arrears of salary and for other benefits for the period from 04.03.1977 to 13.10.1988 and for the period from 14.10.1988 to 31.05.1989. Since there was a compromise during the pendency of the Writ Appeal, a sum of Rs.2,20,540/- was paid as full quit to the fourth respondent. THE fourth respondent has received his pension benefits also.

(3.) THE District Educational Officer, Madurai, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein he has stated that the school had terminated the fourth respondent with effect from 04.03.1977. THEreafter, he was reinstated in service as Headmaster on 14.10.1988, as per the order of the Director of School Education, Chennai. THE management had settled all the back wages due to the fourth respondent. However, the management did not pay the earned leave surrender benefits from 04.03.1977 to 13.10.1988. THErefore, by order dated, 22.10.1993, the Director of School Education, the first respondent herein, directed the school to pay earned leave surrender benefits to the fourth respondent, but the management did not make any attempt to implement the order. Though similar directions were given to the school to pay earned leave surrender benefits to the fourth respondent for the above-said period, this writ petition has been filed, nearly after 15 years, without implementing the order of the first respondent.