SECERTARY OF THE MANAGING Vs. MAHADEB BHATTACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RABINDRA Smriti (S) Bidyaniketan is an educational institution fully aided by the State duly recognised by the West Bengal board of Secondary Education. The respondent No. 1 was an approved assistant Teacher in English. The respondent No. 1 was put under suspension by the Managing Committee with effect from September 27, 2002 followed by a disciplinary proceeding. The respondent No. 1 approached the learned Single Judge for release of the subsistence allowance in accordance with law as according to respondent No. 1 the school Authority had not been paying him appropriate suspension allowance. In the writ petition it was alleged that the respondent No. 1 was put under suspension vide order dated September 27, 2002. He was furnished with a copy of the resolution of the Managing Committee on january 27, 2003 wherein the Managing Committee expressed their desire to initiate proceeding in the meeting held on january 4, 2003. Even after three years the proceeding did not culminate in a logical conclusion and he was not paid salary since August, 2002. The School Authority contested the said proceeding before the learned Single Judge. Two principal issues were raised before His Lordship by the respondent No. 1:- (i) he was entitled to the subsistence allowance according to his scale of pay along with appropriate increments available to his credit; (ii) the institute should compensate him for the financial loss which he had suffered due to lapse of the life insurance policy.

(2.) WITH regard to the life insurance policy His Lordship was not inclined to go into the aspect in absence appropriate details as the respondent No. 1 was not in a position to produce relevant documents before His Lordship.

(3.) WITH regard to the suspension allowance His Lordship observed that the said institute did not have any statutory or other rules to govern the case of suspension. His Lordship negated the contention of the institute to the effect that in absence of any rule governing the case of suspension the Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Rules of 1969")would be applicable. His Lordship observed that since the institute was fully sponsored by the State and the said institute did not adopt the said rules of 1969 the same was not applicable. Following the decision in the case of R. P. Kapur v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in All India Reporter 1964 Supreme Court Page 787 his Lordship held that in absence of any provision with regard to the suspension as well as the suspension allowance the respondent No. 1 was entitled to subsistence allowance at the rate equivalent to his full salary and allowances which he would have otherwise entitled to as an approved teacher working in the institute. His lordship directed payment of the subsistence allowance at the said rate. Hence, this appeal by the institute.