Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 269 (GAU)

Medita Rani v. State of Meghalaya

2006-03-21

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2006
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The grievance raised in this writ petition is the alleged denial of the authority of the School Managing Committee to allow the Petitioner to resume her duty and payment of salary to her. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as teacher by Annexure-1 order dated 19.1.1993 issued by the Administrator-I Primary Schools, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council and Inspector of Schools, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong. In fact, by the said order the proposal of the Managing Committee of the School, namely Tyrsad Church of God LP School, for her appointment as school teacher was approved against the post sanctioned by the Government as indicated in the order. 3. The Petitioner was selected to undergo the basic training in the District Institute of Education and Training Centre, Sohra pursuant to the recommendation made vide Annexure-2 communication dated 19.2.2003 issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Shillong. It was indicated in the communication that the Last Pay Certificate (LPC) of the deputed teachers would be forwarded in due course. As per the requirement, the Petitioner gave an undertaking to complete the training and she was released from the school by order, dated 9.3.2003 issued by the Secretary of the School, to undergo the training. 4. On successful completion of the training course, she was released from the institute vide release order dated 31.12.2003 enabling her to join her school. Along with the release order the LPC showing the pay and allowances received by the Petitioner during the period of training was also issued. 5. Upon such release of the Petitioner from the training institute, she went to join her school by submitting the joining report dated 2.1.2004 but could not do so on refusal on the part of the Respondent No. 6, i.e., the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school to accept the joining report. Be it stated here that, at that point of time, there was no question of undertaking any class by the Petitioner since the school was closed on account of winter vacation, Be it also stated here that a copy of the joining report was endorsed to the jurisdictional Deputy Inspector of the School. 6. Be it stated here that, at that point of time, there was no question of undertaking any class by the Petitioner since the school was closed on account of winter vacation, Be it also stated here that a copy of the joining report was endorsed to the jurisdictional Deputy Inspector of the School. 6. On reopening of the school on 16.2.2004, the Petitioner reported for duty, but the Respondent No. 6 did not allow her to resume/attend her duty with, the intimation that another teacher has been appointed in her place. In spite of repeated requests, the Respondent No. 6 did not allow her to join duty and upon insistence for a written order to that effect, same was refused to be issued. Having no other alternative, the Petitioner approached the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Shillong by submitting representations dated 1.3.2004 and 5.3.2004 with copies to the authorities including the Respondent No. 6. 7. By Annexure-9 communication dated 19.3.2004, the Inspector of Schools, Shillong directed the Petitioner and the Respondent No, 6 to attend the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools on 23.3.2004. According to the Petitioner, a discussion took placed in the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools on 23.3.2004 and the Respondent No. 3, i.e., the Deputy Inspector of Schools requested the Petitioner to tender apology to the Respondent No. 6 in the pretext that she undertook the training course without the consent of the Respondent No. 6. Being assured of amicable resolution of the situation, the Petitioner by her Annexure-10 letter dated 23.3.2004 addressed to the Respondent No. 6 tendered her unconditional apology. 8. In spite of the aforesaid developments, the Petitioner was not allowed to resume her duty by the Respondent No. 6. However, the Respondent No. 3 directly paid her salary for the months of January and February 2004. When she was not allowed to resume duty and her salary was also not paid from March 2004, the Petitioner once again by her Annexure-11 letter dated 23.4.2004 addressed to the Deputy Inspector of Schools requested for appropriate action in the matter. However, the Respondent No. 3 directly paid her salary for the months of January and February 2004. When she was not allowed to resume duty and her salary was also not paid from March 2004, the Petitioner once again by her Annexure-11 letter dated 23.4.2004 addressed to the Deputy Inspector of Schools requested for appropriate action in the matter. Thereafter the matter was placed before the Respondent No. 4, i.e., the Special Officer to the Government of Meghalaya, Education Department, who upon verification of the fact, wrote to the Respondent No. 2, i.e., the Director of Elementary and Mass Education, Government of Meghalaya, by his letter dated 28.4.2004 for causing an enquiry into the matter and to submit report. It was emphasized in the letter that there might be occasion for litigation and that direction should be issued to the Deputy Inspector of Schools to release the salary of the Petitioner, as there was no valid ground to withhold the same. 9. Even after issuance of the aforesaid letter, the Petitioner was not allowed to join. Situated, thus, the Petitioner by her letter, dated 2.6.2004 requested the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Shillong to intervene in the matter. Thereafter the Petitioner was allowed to sign the attendance register for 5 days from 7.6.2004 to 111.6.2004, but again prevented from doing so by the Respondent No. 6. She was, also not paid her salary. 10. When the matter rested thus, the Petitioner developed some gynecological problem and applied for medical leave for 30 days from 19.7.2004 by her application, dated 17.7.2004 submitted to the Respondent No. 3 through the Respondent No. 6. Medical certificate supported the application. On expiry of the period of 30 days, the Petitioner resumed her duty by submitting joining report to the Respondent No. 6 on 18.8.2004 endorsing a copy thereof to the Respondent No. 3. 11. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 6 being vindictive and taking advantage of her illness issued a show-cause notice dated 13.8.2004 seeking her explanation for her alleged unauthorized absence from the school with effect from 15.6.2004. The Petitioner by her reply dated 15.8.2004 denied the allegation. She also by Her letter, dated 26.8.2004 requested the Respondent No. 3 to intervene in the matter and to facilitate release of her salary from March 2004 onwards. The Petitioner by her reply dated 15.8.2004 denied the allegation. She also by Her letter, dated 26.8.2004 requested the Respondent No. 3 to intervene in the matter and to facilitate release of her salary from March 2004 onwards. The Respondent No. 6 once again by another show-cause notice, dated 1.9.2004 asked the Petitioner to explain the circumstances leading to her alleged unauthorized absence from duty. The Petitioner also by her reply, dated 7.9.2004 refuted the allegations. 12. After the aforesaid developments, nothing happened and in the meantime the Respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 3.9.2004 asked the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 6 to meet him on 10.9.2004 to discuss about the matter. In the meantime, the Petitioner applied for 30 days leave with effect from 19.2.2004 and a medical certificate was enclosed along with her application. According to the Petitioner, no fruitful discussion took place on 10.9.2004. 13. The Petitioner once again prayed for maternity leave for a period of 60 days with effect from 1.10.2004 by her application, dated 28.9.2004. On 29.10.2004, she delivered a baby girl. She reported back for duty on 1.12.2004 by submitting joining report to the Respondent No. 6 with copy to the Respondent No. 3. According to the Petitioner, the same condition continued in which she was not allowed to join. Being faced with financial hardship, the Petitioner by her application, dated 22.12.2004 requested the Respondents to release her salary, but the same was not attended to. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 6 in furtherance of his mala fide intention issued' letter dated 8.2.2005 to the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner failed to resume her duty. The Petitioner duly replied the same by her letter, dated 22.2.2005 denying the allegations made. Once again, she wrote a letter to the Respondent No. 3 on 21.2.2005 seeking intervention in the matter, but to no avail. 14. It is in the aforesaid background, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition on 25.5.2005. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 6 has illegally prevented the Petitioner from joining her duty and withheld her salary from March 2004. 15. The Respondent No. 6 has filed counter affidavit. As regards the stand of the Petitioner that she had submitted Annexure-6 joining report, same has been denied by the Respondent No. 6. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 6 has illegally prevented the Petitioner from joining her duty and withheld her salary from March 2004. 15. The Respondent No. 6 has filed counter affidavit. As regards the stand of the Petitioner that she had submitted Annexure-6 joining report, same has been denied by the Respondent No. 6. On the question of tendering apology by the Petitioner, it is the stand of the Respondent No. 6 that such apology was tendered because of insubordination and not on account of undergoing the training without permission. The plea of the Petitioner that she was allowed to sign the attendance register only for few days has been dealt with by the Respondent No. 6 by stating that those were the only days, when the Petitioner attended the school. 16. As regards the plea of the Petitioner that she had applied for leave, the Respondent No. 6 has simply denied the same with the statement that the Petitioner never approached the Respondent No. 6 for leave. Placing reliance on the meeting held on 11.7.2005 amongst the members of the Managing Committee, in which the Petitioner and the Deputy Inspector of Schools were also present, the Respondent No. 6 has agreed that the Petitioner has been granted leave for 76 days and maternity leave for 60 days with the approval of appointment of one Smt. D. Rapsang to work in the school during the period of leave. Thus, in a nutshell it is the stand of the Respondent No. 6 that it is the Petitioner who has declined to join the school and that the Respondent No. 6 never refused joining of the Petitioner. 17. As against the above pleas of the Respondent No. 6, the Respondent Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5 in their counter affidavit have categorically stated that the Petitioner, on completion of her training, duly resumed her duties by submitting the joining report on 2.1.2004 and that the Respondent No. 6 could not have refused to allow the Petitioner to join her duty, although the school at that point of time was on holidays on account of winter vacation. 18. From the counter affidavit, it appears that the salary on account of the Petitioner has all along been drawn, but it is the Respondent No. 6 who has not paid the salary to the Petitioner. 18. From the counter affidavit, it appears that the salary on account of the Petitioner has all along been drawn, but it is the Respondent No. 6 who has not paid the salary to the Petitioner. It is further revealed that the Deputy Inspector of Schools by his letter, dated 7.5.2004 requested the Respondent No. 6 to allow the Petitioner to join her duty. The report of the enquiry, which was conducted pursuant to the direction of the Respondent No. 4, a copy of which has been annexed to, the counter affidavit also reveals that there was purported amicable settlement of the matter with the note of hope and trust that the Petitioner would be paid her salary from March 2004. The report was submitted on 6.7.2004. 19. In paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, the Respondents have made the following statement: That with regard to the statement made in paragraphs 20,21 and 22 of the writ petition, the deponent state that the Tyrsad Church of God LP School being a single teacher school, the teacher is entitled to Medical/Maternity leave with full leave salary. Since the Respondent No. 6 had drawn the salary of the writ Petitioner from March, 2004 onwards, it is the duty of the said Respondent No. 6 to pay the same to the said teacher concerned. 20. From the above stand of the Respondents No. 1 to 5, it appears that the,, Petitioner is entitled to receive her salary from March 2004 onwards. It also appears that she had reported for duty by submitting joining report, dated 2.1.2004. The counter affidavit has further revealed that there was endeavor to settle the matter amicably. However, when the impasse continued, the Petitioner as a last resort approached this Court by filing the writ petition. This Court by order dated 26.5.2005, while entertaining the writ petition, passed an interim order directing the Respondent No. 6 to allow the Petitioner to resume her duty within 10 days, with a further direction to the Respondent No. 3 to ensure resumption of duty. Further direction was issued to pay the arrear salary to the Petitioner within two months. 21. When the above order was not purportedly complied with, the Petitioner filed a contempt petition being COP(C) No. 34 (SH)/2005 on which notice was issued on 16.9.2005. Further direction was issued to pay the arrear salary to the Petitioner within two months. 21. When the above order was not purportedly complied with, the Petitioner filed a contempt petition being COP(C) No. 34 (SH)/2005 on which notice was issued on 16.9.2005. Thereafter by order dated 30.11.2005 the alleged contemner was directed to appear in the court on 2.12.2005. On 2.12.2005, the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School, i.e., the Respondent No. 6 appeared in the court and took the plea that although the Petitioner was allowed to resume her duty, she did not join. As regards the arrear pay and allowances, it was revealed that the pay of the Petitioner for the period from March 2004 to June 2005 has been drawn and kept in the bank and he is ready to release the same to the Petitioner within one week. In view of such a stand on the part of the Respondent No. 6, this Court passed the following order on 2.12.2005: The Petitioner shall file her joining report before Mr. Mawlong, the Secretary of the School, within seven days from today. On her submission of the joining report, the Secretary will acknowledged receipt of the same by signing in the Office copy, to be kept by the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner shall be allowed to continue in the post as usual. The Petitioner shall also be allowed to sign the attendance register as per the requirement of the School. Mr. Mawlong shall also release the salary of the Petitioner w.e.f. March 2004 to June 2005, within the aforesaid period of seven day and the Petitioner shall also accept the same. If is made clear that if the Respondent Mr. Mawlong, does not comply with this order, Suo Motu Criminal Contempt proceeding, shall be initiated against him. 22. After the aforesaid order passed in contempt petition, the Respondent No. 6 filed Misc. Case No. 1 (SH)/2006 in COP(C) No. 34(SH)/2005 alleging non-compliance of the order dated 2.12.2005 by the Petitioner. It is the case of the Respondent No. 6 that the Petitioner instead of joining the school sent her joining report through registered post and did not come to receive her salary amounting to Rs. 66,212. However, the amount drawn in cheque was sent through registered post and the Petitioner allegedly refused to accept the same. 23. It is the case of the Respondent No. 6 that the Petitioner instead of joining the school sent her joining report through registered post and did not come to receive her salary amounting to Rs. 66,212. However, the amount drawn in cheque was sent through registered post and the Petitioner allegedly refused to accept the same. 23. The Petitioner has filed her reply affidavit denying the stand of the Respondent No. 6. According to her, pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 2.12.2005 passed by this Court, she personally reported to the Respondent No. 6 seeking resumption of her duty on 8.12.2005 and requested for release of her arrear salary. However, the Respondent No. 6 refused to accept her joining report and to release her salary. Situated thus, she sent her joining report through registered post. According to her, the Respondent No. 6 has played tricks with the order, dated 2.12.2005. 24. As regards the plea of the Respondent No. 6 that the cheque amounting to Rs. 66,212 was sent to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has denied the same and she has contended that it is only through Misc. Case No. 1(SH)/2006 filed by the Respondent No. 6, she has come to know about the purported issuance of the cheque and she immediately lodged a complaint dated 2.2.2006 with the concerned post office with a copy to the Chief Post Master General, Meghalaya, Shillong, refuting the allegation of refusal on her part to receive the registered letter. According to her it was a manipulation on the part of the Respondent No. 6. She has further contended that although the arrear salary for the period comes to Rs. 1,26,598, the Respondent No. 6 with mala fide intention drew the amount of Rs. 66,212 only and thereby has violated the order of this Court. 25. Learned Counsel for the respective parties made their submissions on the basis the respective stand in the writ petition and the counter affidavits. While Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it is the Respondent No. 6, who is responsible for creating the impasse, it was the submission of Mr. A.S. Siddique, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 that it is the Petitioner whose conduct has led to the present situation. Mr. S. Sen, Mr. N.D. Chullai and Mr. While Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it is the Respondent No. 6, who is responsible for creating the impasse, it was the submission of Mr. A.S. Siddique, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 that it is the Petitioner whose conduct has led to the present situation. Mr. S. Sen, Mr. N.D. Chullai and Mr. H. Thangkhiew, learned State counsel submitted that the Petitioner being a regular teacher of the school, the Respondent No. 6 could not have disallowed her from joining duty and receiving her due salary. 26. From the materials on record and tracing the facts revealed by the respective parties, while it is the case of the Petitioner that she has not been allowed to resume her duties coupled with withholding of her salary, it is the stand of the Respondent No. 6 that she did not report for duty. The official Respondents on the other hand have taken the stand that the Petitioner duly reported for duty and the Respondent No. 6 was bound to accept the joining report. It also appears that the Petitioner has been granted the leave including the maternity leave. It is also on record that the official Respondents have drawn the salary of the Petitioner, but the Respondent No. 6 has not paid the same to her, in spite of the order passed by this Court on 2.12.2005 in COP(C) No. 34 (SH)/2005 preceded by the order dated 26.5.2005 passed in the writ petition. 27. Even after the order dated 2.12.2005, the Respondent No. 6 issued the cheque for a lesser amount than the actual amount of salary, the Petitioner was entitled to. During the course of hearing Mr. A.S. Siddique, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 tried to justify such action of the Respondent No, 6 on the ground that a substitute teacher having been appointed in place of the Petitioner, the salary was required to be apportioned between the two. Such a submission made by the learned Counsel is somewhat strange. If the Petitioner has been granted leave and was not allowed to resume her duty, her entitled salary cannot be paid to another teacher appointed during her period of leave or for the period when she was forced not to join. Such a submission made by the learned Counsel is somewhat strange. If the Petitioner has been granted leave and was not allowed to resume her duty, her entitled salary cannot be paid to another teacher appointed during her period of leave or for the period when she was forced not to join. It is the definite stand of the official Respondents that the salary of the Petitioner has been drawn and such salary having been drawn under a particular head, the Respondent No. 6 cannot take the stand of utilizing the amount for some other purpose. Confrontational attitude adopted by the Respondent No. 6 is writ large on the face of it. 28. The Petitioner being a regular employee of the official Respondents, the said Respondents, more particularly the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 ought to have ensured her joining and release of salary by taking timely appropriate action. Their inaction in the matter has given rise to the present litigation. The Respondent No. 6 being only the Secretary of the Managing Committee ought not to have been allowed to play the pivotal role in the matter of resumption of duty of the Petitioner and payment of salary to her, as if, he is the sole authority in the matter. He being under deep and pervasive control of the official Respondents the appropriate authority ought to have resolved the issue. It is not understood as to why the official Respondents failed to do so in spite of their clear stand in the counter affidavit supporting the case of the Petitioner. 29. During the pendency of the proceeding before this Court, time and again orders were passed for ensuring joining of the Petitioner and payment of her salary. However, the Respondent No. 6 in this or that pretext did not comply with any of the orders. In such circumstances filing of Misc. Case No. 1 (SH)/2006 by the Respondent No. 6 about which mention has been made; above indicates ill design of the Respondent No. 6 in the entire episode. The very fact that the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition on 25.5.2005 seeking a direction to the Respondent No. 6 to allow her to join her duty and to pay salary will go to show that the Petitioner is keen to join her duty. The very fact that the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition on 25.5.2005 seeking a direction to the Respondent No. 6 to allow her to join her duty and to pay salary will go to show that the Petitioner is keen to join her duty. In fact, during the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the Petitioner placing reliance on the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 11.7.2005 pointed out as to how the majority of the members of the Managing Committee are the relations of the Respondent No. 6, such as son, wife, daughter etc. and influenced the decision of the Respondent No. 6 in the matter. It was also argued that the Respondent No. 6 is hell-bent to see the ouster of the Petitioner to facilitate appointment of his own relation. 30. Although, the Respondent No. 6 issued two show-cause notices to the Petitioner making allegation of not attending duties to which the Petitioner also submitted her reply, no further action was taken by the Respondent No. 6. Had there been any negligence and/or misconduct on the part of the Petitioner, in discharge of her duty, the Respondent No. 6 ought to have written to the official Respondents apprising the same, but instead remained silent in the matter after issuance of the said show-cause notices. On the face of the denial of the Petitioner of the allegations made in the show-cause notices coupled with her numerous representations to the authorities to intervene in the matter so that she could resume her duty would go to show that the Respondent No. 6 for the reasons best known to him played with the matter instead of resolving the same. 31. In view of the above, the prayer made in the writ petition stands granted. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall ensure joining of the writ Petitioner in the school without any intervention on the part of the Respondent No. 6. They will also ensure release of the admissible pay and allowances to the Petitioner from March 2004 onwards. While the said Respondents shall ensure joining of the Petitioner in the school within seven days from today, they will also ensure release of the admissible arrear and current salary within one month from today. 32. They will also ensure release of the admissible pay and allowances to the Petitioner from March 2004 onwards. While the said Respondents shall ensure joining of the Petitioner in the school within seven days from today, they will also ensure release of the admissible arrear and current salary within one month from today. 32. The Respondent No. 6 shall also ensure compliance of this direction failing which the contempt proceeding shall stand initiated against him, upon reporting of the Petitioner about non-compliance of the directions. The Petitioner shall also regularly attend the school and the Respondent No. 3 through his deputed officials shall monitor the state of affairs till normalcy returns between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 6 and for that matter to the school, which should be the paramount consideration for the official Respondents. They will bear in mind the duty cast on them and shall act in the matter with firm hands so that neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent No. 6 can twist the things so as to suit their respective cases. 33. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition stands allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.