- (1.)THIS appeal has been heard in instalments. Hearing concluded on 8-1-1991, but on the earlier dated, 13-12-1990, while making submission on merits and assailing seriously the validity of the impugned judgment and decree on grounds of "limitation" and "maintainability", an offer was made on behalf of appellant to the plaintiff/respondent to settle the matter amicably. To enable her, who was present in Court, to consider the offer, further hearing was adjourned.
(2.)IN discharge of my constitutional duty, I warned counsel and parties present in Court that for settling personal scores for hurt ego to anybody, this Court cannot be a forum. Therefore, without anticipating decision on merits, they should endeavour honestly and sincerely to reach an amicable settlement without Court's intervention inasmuch as concepts of compassion and sympathy in deciding a legal dispute are unknown to Courts. Justice has to be administered according to law in Courts as the Judges swear to uphold the law and Constitution without fear, favour or ill-will and they must decide dispute accordingly even if bitter truth and stringent law yields bitter result for any party, unfortunately, it appears my warning went unheeded and I was required to conclude hearing on merits of the appeal on 8-1-1991 after Shri Naik, appearing for plaintiff/respondent addressed me, submitted that his client was not interested in amicable settlement.
(3.)IN the plaint dated 20-4-1984, defendants arrayed are (1) Ramcharanlal Sharma, Secretary, Adarsh Vidyalaya Sanchalan Samiti, Morena, (2) Patiram Shiromani, Head Master, Adarsh Primary School, Ganeshpura, Morena and (3) Laxminarayan Sharma, Principal, Adarsh Higher Secondary School, Ganeshpura, Morena. The plaintiff described herself as a teacher in the Adarsh Primary School, Morena and stated that she had been serving as a Teacher under aforesaid Managing Committee of Adarsha Primary School, Ganeshpura, as a permanent employee. The provisions of Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon ke Vetan ka Sanday) Adhiniyam, 1978, for short, the 'adhiniyam' were applicable to her and to employees of the said Managing Committee. She also stated that all the three educational institutions were, in fact, managed by defendant No. 3 on behalf of the Managing Committee and he had dealt with the matter in all respects concerning plaintiff's case. Her case is that since 1978, plaintiff started receiving salary under orders of District Education Officer, Morena when defendant No. 3 demanded plaintiff to refund excess payment made of Rs. 60/- per month from her. On her refusal, defendant No. 3 threatened her with dismissal from service and engaged goondas to intimidate her. He started misusing his influence with the Managing Committee for termination of plaintiff's services. As a result, the Managing Committee, illegally and acting mala fide, suspended her in respect of an incident of 22-9-1978 without drawing up any proceedings, by order No. 591, dated 3-10-1978. Thereafter, acting in a highhanded manner, the Committee conducted disciplinary proceedings behind her back and adopted a Resolution on 12-3-1979 to terminate her services w. e. f. from 23-3-1979.