- (1.) THE petitioner prays for the issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary for the period 15.5.1991 to 12.8.1991, after deducting the subsistence allowance already paid as directed by the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka. No. 1121/A3/95 dated 27.7.1995.
(2.) NOTICE of motion was ordered on 24.7.1996. The respondents have been served. Heard Mr. S. Kamadevan for the Writ Petitioner, Mr. N. Subramani, Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. Jeremiah, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Petitioner's Case:- The petitioner, a Secondary Grade Teacher came to be promoted as Headmistress on 15.11.1974 in the 3rd respondent school. On 15.5.1991, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Challenging the order of suspension, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 10398 of 1991. This Court admitted the Writ Petition and ordered issue of rule nisi. The 3rd respondent by order dated 12.8.1991 revoked the order of suspension and the petitioner had been taken back to duty on 12.8.1991 itself. Hence, the Writ Petition came to be dismissed as infructuous. The Writ petitioner had reached the age of superannuation on 30.6.1995 and she was allowed to retire. According to the petitioner, she was being paid subsistence allowance during the said period of suspension and the 3rd respondent management had not initiated any disciplinary proceedings and the entire proceedings was dropped. However, the period of suspension from 15.5.1991 to 12.8.1991 was not regularised by the management and consequently, petitioner's benefit had not been settled. The petitioner represented to the first respondent about the non-settlement and the first respondent by proceedings dated 27.7.1995, directed the 3rd respondent School Management to regularise the said period of 89 days and to pay full salary for the said period. The said order had become final, but the 3rd respondent had not paid the arrears of salary. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 7783/- is due to the petitioner for the period of 15.5.1991 to 12.8.1991. For the inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent, there is no reasonable cause and as the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation, the 3rd respondent should be directed to pay salary due to the petitioner for the period of suspension after deducting the subsistence allowance.
(3.) CASE of the Respondents 1 & 2:- So far as the respondents 1 and 2 are concerned, the Government Advocate while referring the communication of the first respondent pointed out that the 3rd respondent school is liable to pay arrears of wages for the period in question and the first respondent had rightly directed the 3rd respondent to pay arrears by the proceedings dated 27.7.1995. It is also pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that the 3rd respondent school had not chosen to challenge the proceedings dated 27.7.1995 passed by the first respondent who directed disbursement of salary for the period 15.5.1991 to 11.8.1991 and it is the 3rd respondent school who has to pay the full salary for the period in question. Case of the 3rd Respondent:- The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit admitting that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the school committee. The 3rd respondent further stated that the petitioner had submitted an explanation after a delay of two months and in the meantime the two months period stipulated under Section 22.3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act had expired and the 3rd respondent also applied for extension of suspension by two months from the competent authority. But the competent authority had not passed the orders. However, the school committee on 10.8.1991 considered the explanation submitted by the Writ Petitioner and rejected the same holding that the petitioner is guilty of all charges, but taking into consideration of the past services rendered by the Writ Petitioner and also the retirement of the petitioner shortly did not impose any further punishment while treating the period of suspension as punishment. But the same has been communicated to the competent authority. It is stated by the 3rd respondent that the petitioner had not disclosed the development subsequent to the order on 27.7.1995. ;