Judgment :- 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant before me in this appeal, which arises out of O.S. No. 110/77 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli. 2. The facts leading to the appeal are shortly as under: The plaintiff/appellant served the respondent college as a Physical Director for more than 27 years. He attained the age of 58 on 15th January, 1973. He was served with a notice of termination on 21st January, 1974 (Ex. A1) stating that his services would stand terminated with effect from 31st January, 1974. The plaintiff made representation to the defendant and the Madurai University. In the meanwhile, the Director of Collegiate Education. Madras by his order dated 19th January, 1974 (Ex. B1) accorded permission of re-employment of certain teachers including the plaintiff, who had by then attained the age of 58 years. However, under Ex. A2, dated 31st January, 1974, the order passed under Ex. A1 was modified so as to take effect from 31st March, 1974. The University of Madurai, on further representation, passed orders on 26th March, 1974, directing the continuance of the plaintiff in service till he attained the age of 60 years. Against that order, The Educational Society Tirunelveli v. The Madurai University 1, was preferred to this Court. The learned single Judge of this Court quashed the order of the Madurai University. There upon two appeals were preferred in The Madurai University v. The Educational Society, Tirunelveli 2 and C. Jagannathan & another v. The Educational Society, Tirunelveli 3 because two petitioners had moved this Court and one of the petitioners being plaintiff, the appellant herein. The Writ Appeals were disposed of on 23rd October, 1975. As to what the effect of the Judgment in the above writ Appeals, I will consider a little later. 3. The defendant, respondent herein, did admit the services of the plaintiff originally. By an order dated 11th October, 1973, of the Director of Collegiate Education, Madras in Rc. No. 42834/82 communicated in G.O.Ms. No. 1699 dated 11th October, 1973, the age of superannuation was fixed at 58. It is further provided that no teaching staff will be given extension but may be re-employed upto the age of 60 years, with the permission of the Director of Collegiate Education. No. 42834/82 communicated in G.O.Ms. No. 1699 dated 11th October, 1973, the age of superannuation was fixed at 58. It is further provided that no teaching staff will be given extension but may be re-employed upto the age of 60 years, with the permission of the Director of Collegiate Education. On receipt of the Government Order, the Secretary of the defendant served a notice on the plaintiff, terminating his services with effect from 31st January 1974, as he had attained the age of superannuation on 15th January, 1973. The plaintiff made representation to the defendant and Madurai University, praying that he may be permitted to continue in service till the end of the academic year, namely, upto 31st March, 1974. The Registrar of Madurai University in his proceeding dated 24th January, 1974 observed that G.O.Ms. No. 1169 Education came into force on 1st October, 1973, and therefore, they would remain in service till the end of the academic year 1973-1974. As per G.O.Ms. No. 72028 Education dated 11th December, 1970, the Secretary of the defendant society was requested to retain the plaintiff till the end of the academic year 1973-1974. It was under those circumstances. Ex. A2 order was passed. The interpretation placed by the plaintiff about the judgment of the High Court is wrong. The plaintiff has no right to serve beyond the age of 58. Thereafter re-employment could be only at the discretion of the management. Merely because he was re-employed till 31st March, 1974, it does not give him automatic right to serve till the age of 60 years. So, neither the order of the Secretary of the defendant dated 21st January, 1974 nor the order dated 31st January, 1974 could be construed as an order of re-employment. Whatever amounts were due till 31st March, 1974 had been paid and no further amount is due from the defendant. In as much as the plaintiff is competent to approach the departmental authority under the Tamil Nadu Private College Act, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4. The relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff is that of master and servant and this is governed purely by a contract between the parties, which is embodied in the Service and Conduct Rules. 4. The relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff is that of master and servant and this is governed purely by a contract between the parties, which is embodied in the Service and Conduct Rules. Neither the Government nor the University has any right to alter or modify or amend the terms of the contract between the plaintiff and defendant. Under Cl. 6 of the Service and Conduct Rules of the defendant, the teaching staff has no right to demand extension of service and such extension is purely at the discretion of the college. 5. The plaintiff filed a reply statement reiterating his original stand. 6. On the above pleadings the following issues were set down for trial: 1. After completing of 58 years whether the plaintiff has any right in him to serve till he completes 60 years? 2. Whether the plaintiff has been re-employed after completion of 58 years? 3. Whether the Managing Committee has re-employed the plaintiff after superannuation as per Service and Conduct Rules and whether the plaintiff can be re-employed for more than a year at a time in contravention of Service and Conduct Rules ? 4. What was the pay last drawn by the plaintiff? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any arrears of salary as claimed in the plaint? 6. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? 7. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled. 7. The learned Subordinate Judge on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, on issues 1 to 3, came to the conclusion that there was no re-employment of the plaintiff beyond the age of 58. Even assuming that there was re-employment, the defendant society could not be called upon to re-employ a member of the staff compulsorily up to the age of 60 years. On issue No. 4, he held that the last drawn pay of the plaintiff was Rs. 901. 60. On issue No. 5, it was held that in as much as the plaintiff had not been granted further extension of service, he was not entitled to any arrears of salary. On issue No. 6 it was held that the civil court has every jurisdiction. Having regard to the above finding, on issue No. 7, it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. In the result, the suit was dismissed. Thus the appeal. 8. On issue No. 6 it was held that the civil court has every jurisdiction. Having regard to the above finding, on issue No. 7, it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. In the result, the suit was dismissed. Thus the appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urges that it is a fact that the appellant attained the age of 58 as on 15th January, 1973. If really there was no re-employment on that day he should have been superannuated. In so far as he was re-employed till the date of 31st March, 1974, it would mean, having regard to condition No. 10 of the University as clarified by the University in its order under Ex. A3, that he would be entitled to continue till the age of 60 years. It is this interpretation which had come to be accepted by the Division Bench which reversed the findings of the learned single Judge. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to contend to the contrary. Looked at from this point of view the contrary interpretation placed by the court below is absolutely untenable and therefore the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to succeed. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent in meeting the above submission, would contend that it is not correct to state that the plaintiff was re-employed beyond 10th January, 1973. It was only when the G.O.Ms. No. 1699, dated 11th October, 1973 was communicated in Rc. No. 42834/52/72 by the Director of Collegiate Education on 11th October, 1973, it came to light that the age of superannuation was fixed at 58. It was thereafter Ex. A1 came to be issued. However, in view of the request of the plaintiff that a member of the staff should not be allowed to retire during the middle of the academic year, his services came to be continued till 31st March, 1974. Therefore to say that there was re-employment is totally incorrect. 10. The Director of Collegiate Education accorded permission for the retention of the services of the plaintiff till he attained the age of 60. To that effect also the University resolution is under Ex. A3. But if in fact there was no re-employment at all, the plaintiff cannot compel the Society to take his services and demand payment of salary till he attained the age of 60 years. To that effect also the University resolution is under Ex. A3. But if in fact there was no re-employment at all, the plaintiff cannot compel the Society to take his services and demand payment of salary till he attained the age of 60 years. The Division Bench in the above Writ Appeals has not held that the respondent (defendant) should re-employ the plaintiff/appellant and reinstate him in service. It has held categorically that there is no duty cast upon the respondent to that effect. Therefore, in so far as there is no-re-employment, the case of the plaintiff will have to fail. Nor again is it a case of actual service rendered. Looked at from this point of view, no exception could be taken to the judgment of the Court below. 11. Having regard to the above submissions, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiff/appellant has, in fact, been re-employed till he attained the age of 60 years, so as to claim arrears of salary. 12. It is common case that the appellant attained the age of 58 on 15th January, 1973. But one thing is clear in this case that G.O.Ms. No. 1699 Education Department was communicated by the Director of Collegiate Education, Madras in Rc. No. 42834/52/72 on 11th October, 1973. The sailent features of the G.O. which deals with the payment of teaching grant to aided colleges as well as increase in the rate of percentage of dearness allowance, and reviewing certain other items are to the following effect: “In G.O. (Ms.) No. 575, Education dated 2nd May, 1972, orders were issued dispensing with the method of sanctioning teaching grant to the aided colleges at 2/3rds of the deficit based on a notional income and for sanctioning grants, from the year 1972-1973, at 80% of the net deficit on the basis of actual income of the Colleges . Apart from this grant, the aided colleges were getting a separate grant towards expenditure on Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance on the basis of 50% of the actual expenditure on these items as per the existing formula. The management have requested that the grant towards Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance may also be increased to 80%. The management have requested that the grant towards Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance may also be increased to 80%. The Government have examined the request in detail and they direct that, instead of having a separate allowances grant, a single grant be given, in which expenditure on allowances should also be taken into account and that this integrated grant be on the basis of 80% of the annual deficit of each aided college”. Then comes the relevant paragraph in relation to the staff. “Persons above the age of 58, on the teaching staff will not be given extension of service, but may be re-employed upto 60 years with the permission of the Director of Collegiate Education ”. (Emphasis supplied)”. It requires to be carefully noted that it merely provides an option on the part of the college for re-employment when it says “may be re-employed”. Therefore, having regard to the scope of the Government Order and the communication emanating from the Director of Collegiate Education, under Ex. A1 dated 21st January, 1974 the following order was passed: “Thiruvalargal G. Venkata Rao M.A. Professor of English and Vice-Principal S. Srinivasan, B.Sc., D.P.L, Physical Education and K.V. Murthaiah, M.A. Additional Professor of Tamil Language already completed the age of 58 on 22nd February, 1972, 15th January, 1973 and 10th October, 1973 respectively. Their services are hereby terminated with effect from the afternoon of 31st January, 1974”. However, what had happened was pursuant to the above G.O., the respondent by his letter in 485/73/74 dated 4th November, 1973, requested permission of the Director of Collegiate Education, for re-employment of the plaintiff as well. Thus such a permission was accorded by the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education, Madras in L. Dis. No. 225171/82 dated 19th January, 1974 (Ex. B1). It was stated under that:— “Permission is accorded for the re-employment of the following teachers who have attained the age of 58 years. 1 .. .. .. .. 2 .. .. .. .. 3. Thiru S. Srinivasan, B.Sc., Dip. in Phy. Edn. Physical Director. It is this Srinivasan who is the appellant herein. In paragraph 2 of the said letter it is stated as follows: “The period of re-employment and the salary payable to them should be regulated with reference to the orders issued in the following Government Orders. .. .. .. .. .. Thiru S. Srinivasan, B.Sc., Dip. in Phy. Edn. Physical Director. It is this Srinivasan who is the appellant herein. In paragraph 2 of the said letter it is stated as follows: “The period of re-employment and the salary payable to them should be regulated with reference to the orders issued in the following Government Orders. .. .. .. .. .. Grant will be assessed on their behalf according to rules provided all other conditions like qualifications load, etc., are satisfied”. 12. As a sequel to that order under Ex. A2 dated 31st January, 1974 modified the earlier order of termination of services, made under Ex. A1 and re-appointed the plaintiff till 31st March, 1974. This had become necessary because the G.O., referred to above (Ex. B10) states that no person should be retired during the middle of the academic year. It was this, which was pointed out by the Registrar of Madurai University in his letter in A7/4/73 dated 26th March, 1974 acceding to the request of the plaintiff, that he might be permitted to continue till the end of the academic year, namely, 31st March, 1974. Therefore, but for the request of plaintiff, his services would have normally terminated on 31st January, 1974. It was under those circumstances, the modification arose. What is now urged is that consequent to the re-employment till 31st March, 1974, the plaintiff is entitled to continue until he reaches the age of 60 years. This contention requires to be examined. For that strong reliance is placed on Ex. A3, the resolution of the Madurai University, dated 26th March, 1974. I would do well to extract the said Resolution: “ After considering all the aspects, the Syndicate has resolved that. .. i. The correspondent of the M.D.T. Hindu College, Tirunelveli be informed that condition No. 10 of the conditions of services of teachers in college of the Madurai University is binding both the management and the teachers concerned; ii. The correspondent be informed that according to the rules of the University, the age of the retirement of teachers permanently appointed is 60 and that the following teachers are eligible to continue in service till they complete the age of 60 and iii. The Correspondent be informed that the appeals submitted by the following teachers are admitted and they should be reinstated and retained in service till they complete the age of 60 1. The Correspondent be informed that the appeals submitted by the following teachers are admitted and they should be reinstated and retained in service till they complete the age of 60 1. Thiru C. Jagannathan, Principal and 2. Thiru S. Srinivasan, Physical Director. In communicating the above, I am also by direction to state that the above two teachers be reinstated and retained in service till they complete the age of 60. I am also to state that if the teachers reach the stage of superannuation during the middle of the academic year, they be permitted to continue till the end of the academic year with reference to the G.O. 2028 dated 11th December, 1970”. The University in so far as Cl. (iii) directs the college that the teachers, including the plaintiff, should be reinstated and retained in service till they complete the age of 60 years, the case of the appellant is understandable. But the question is whether, in fact, was there re-employment. 13. I may now go to the judgment of the Division Bench consisting of the learned Chief Justice and S. Natarajan, J. rendered in W.A. Nos. 91 and 190 of 1975 on 23rd October, 1975. The Division Bench states as follows: “It seems to us that this view of the learned Judge cannot be fully supported. The Government Order and the condition referred to above are two different matters, the former governing the grant in aid and the latter prescribing the age of superannuation, which will normally have effect. But the Government Order also contemplated that in certain circumstances of re-employment, the persons so re-employed may serve upto the completion of 60 years of age. It follows therefore that there is no intrinsic inconsistency between the two. While the Government order allow a teacher to function until the completion of 60 years of age, it makes a difference that on 58, the teacher will normally retire unless re-employed, in which case, he will be in service upto the age of 60. That is consistent with condition No. 10. While the Government order allow a teacher to function until the completion of 60 years of age, it makes a difference that on 58, the teacher will normally retire unless re-employed, in which case, he will be in service upto the age of 60. That is consistent with condition No. 10. In other words, condition No. 10 should be read in the light of the prescription in the grant in aid Government Order and these two being read harmoniously, it would only mean that a teacher shall reach the age of superannuation on the completion of the age of 60, and on re-employment he can serve until he completes the age of 60. Beyond that period, no re-employment will be allowed. If there is no re-employment after 58, condition No. 10 does not compel college or the Institution concerned to re-employ him (Emphasis supplied). All that condition No. 10 contemplates is that a teacher may serve until the age of 60, which is to be read and applied in the light of the stipulations in the grant in aid Government Order”. I may state, however, the appeals came to be dismissed ultimately as infruetuous, because by then, the plaintiff had attained the age of superannuation. A careful reading of the above extract of the judgment in the Writ Appeals, clearly shows that no obligation is cast on the college to re-employ the appellant till he attains the age of 60 years. Only if there was such re-employment, the contention of the petitioner could be accepted. Nowhere do I find any rule to the effect that a teacher is entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. I have explained as to the circumstances under which the earlier extension of services till 31st March, 1974 came to be made. Notwithstanding the specific directions given by the Madurai University under Ex. A3, if in fact, there was no re-employment of the plaintiff till he attained the age of 60, I am unable to see what complaint be could validly make. The proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 19th January, 1974, to which I have already made a reference, merely accords permission and at no point of time, there was any re-employment of the plaintiff. At this stage, even at the risk of the repetition, I am to state that normally on the G.O.Ms. The proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 19th January, 1974, to which I have already made a reference, merely accords permission and at no point of time, there was any re-employment of the plaintiff. At this stage, even at the risk of the repetition, I am to state that normally on the G.O.Ms. No. 1699 dated 1st October, 1973 having brought to the notice of the college under Ex. B2 dated 11th October, 1973, the services of the plaintiff would have stood terminated by then. For the first time, the college is made aware that the age of superannuation is 58. However, having regard to Ex. B1 and the relevant G.O. cited therein his services came to be extended till 31st March, 1974. Therefore by no stretch or imagination, the continuance of the services of the plaintiff/appellant could be ever called re-employment. Proceeding on that basis, if in fact there was no re-employment on 31st March, 1974, I am unable to see how the plaintiff can make his claim for arrears of salary. Therefore, the finding of the Court below is correct. It is not even a case of services rendered. Therefore, even on that basis, I am unable to grant any redressal in favour of the plaintiff. 14. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, I make no order as to costs.