SHOBHADEVI Vs. HINDI PRASARAK MANUAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the original plaintiff and respondents are the original defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are as under : The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for declaration that she was in continuous service and for damages which were quantified in respect of the salary which was not paid to her for the period of 11 months. The defendant No. 1 Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act and the defendant No. 2 is a Member of the Executive Committee of the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 runs a High School at Yavatmal known as Angle Hindi High School, Yavatmal. The plaintiff was a teacher teaching in the said School and she was appointed on 7th September, 1966 in a clear vacancy. The case of the plaintiff is that at the end of the session of 1966 -67 she was informed that her services are discontinued. However, no written order was given to her. The plaintiff continued to work in the said School till 30th April, 1968. The Management again served a Notice of termination with effect from 1st of May, 1968. When the plaintiff enquired as to why her services were terminated, the defendant No. 2 informed her that it was a routine matter and that she should see him in June, 1968 and that she would be continued in service in the next year as a matter of course. Defendant No. 2, however, informed her that the Management, would continue her in service provided she donated 2 months' vacation salary to the School Funds and secondly on the condition that she should give a letter of resignation addressed to the President of the defendant No. 1 without putting any date on the said letter. She complied with the said request and continued to work. However, the services of the plaintiff were terminated. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit.

(3.) THE Trial Court framed issues and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court and the said appeal was allowed. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order by the Second Additional District Judge, Yavatmal, has preferred this Second Appeal.