Judgment :- (Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent against the order of the learned Judge Mrs. Justice Prabha Sridevan, dated 01.04.2005 made in W.P.No.32340 of 2003.) P. Sathasivam, J. The Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of learned single Judge dated 01.04.2005 made in W.P.No.32340 of 2003, in and by which, the learned Judge directed the first respondent therein, namely, the Correspondent, Little Flower Primary School, Chinnalapatti, to pay a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. In the same order, the learned Judge has observed that as regards the balance claimed, the entitlement to it will be ascertained only after the appeal is disposed of and it will depend upon the outcome of the appeal. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. For convenience sake, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the learned single Judge. 3. According to the petitioner, in the year 1975, she had joined as a Secondary grade Assistant in the first respondent, Little Flower Primary School. In 1983, she was promoted as a Headmistress both in her capacity as a Secondary Grade Assistant and as Headmistress. She had executed her work without any complaint. In the year 2000, misunderstanding developed between herself and the first respondent. The first respondent, by order dated 29.01.2001, placed the petitioner under suspension. By Proceedings dated 31.03.2001, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, the second respondent herein, issued a direction to the first respondent to reinstate her. In spite of the said direction, according to the petitioner, neither she was reinstated nor paid any allowance or salary. Hence, she filed W.P.No.14123 of 2001 before this Court. By order dated 30.10.2001 in W.P.M.P.No.20935 of 2001, the learned single Judge of this Court, passed an order directing the first respondent either to restore the status of the petitioner as Headmistress of the first respondent school, failing which to pay the salary and allowances to her after the expiry of the first two months period of suspension during the pendency of the writ petition. In the same order, the learned Judge directed the first respondent to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the initial period of two months from 29.01.2001 to 30.03.2001. To this extent, the miscellaneous petition was ordered. 4. In the same order, the learned Judge directed the first respondent to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the initial period of two months from 29.01.2001 to 30.03.2001. To this extent, the miscellaneous petition was ordered. 4. After getting the copy of the order, the petitioner made a representation to implement the same. A reminder was also sent on 24.01.2002. But there was no response from the first respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.189 of 2002 and the same was disposed of on 12.04.2002, with a direction to approach the authorities to realise the amount. Based on the said direction, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 06.06.2002 bringing to the notice of respondents 2 and 3 the orders passed earlier. Thereafter, the third respondent, by proceedings dated 28.05.2003, issued direction to the first respondent to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner. The first respondent paid the subsistence allowance for the period of four months to the tune of Rs.27,226/-. 5. The first respondent School is an aided School and governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act. As per the provisions of the said Act, the petitioner is eligible for salary from 29.03.2001. In spite of specific statutory provision and the orders of this Court and instructions of the Government authorities, the first respondent Management arbitrarily and unreasonably disregarded to implement those directions. In such circumstance, she approached this Court by filing W.P.No.32340 of 2003, seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent Little Flower Primary School to pay salary to her from 29.03.2001 and to reinstate her as Headmistress in the first respondent School forthwith in view of the order passed in W.P.M.P.No.20935 of 2001 in W.P.No.14123 of 2001 dated 30.10.2001. 6. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made in the affidavit and also highlighted their stand. 7. By the impugned order dated 01.04.2005, the learned Judge, after noting the earlier order dated 03.12.2001 (passed by FMIKJ) and various decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court and considering the fact that at the relevant time, the appeal filed by the Management was pending before the Joint Director, directed the first respondent management to pay a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. With the above direction, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition. Questioning the same, the School Management has filed the present appeal. 8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the present writ petition is not warranted and in any event, it is not maintainable. He also contended that inasmuch as against the order of the Joint Director, who dismissed their appeal, the management filed W.P.No.28146 of 2005 and the same is pending. The writ petitioner in this petition has to await the decision in the same and the learned Judge committed an error in issuing direction for payment of Rs.2.5 lakhs. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner / first respondent in this appeal, contended that the writ petitioner is justified in filing the present petition since even after expiry of four months from the date of suspension order, namely, 29.01.2001, in spite of direction of the educational authorities as well as this Court, the petitioner was not paid the subsistence allowance and she is deemed to be in service as Headmistress and entitled to salary as Headmistress. He further contended that taking note of all these factual details, the statutory provisions as well as the earlier order dated 03.12.2001 (passed by FMIKJ), the learned single Judge ordered the writ petition. He also contended that inasmuch as the Joint Director has dismissed the appeal of the Management, she is entitled to entire arrears, which comes to Rs.5,98,000/-. 10. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the materials as well as the order of the learned single Judge. 11. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was suspended on 29.01.2001. As per Section 22(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, the maximum period, a teacher can be kept under suspension, is four months. Accordingly, the suspension period came to an end by 29.05.2001. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that except the subsistence allowance for a period four months, she was not paid any amount in spite of representations / direction of the educational authorities as well as the order of the learned single Judge of this Court. 12. Accordingly, the suspension period came to an end by 29.05.2001. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that except the subsistence allowance for a period four months, she was not paid any amount in spite of representations / direction of the educational authorities as well as the order of the learned single Judge of this Court. 12. It is an admitted fact that the decision taken by the Management was not approved by the District Educational Officer and even the appeal filed by the Management is rejected by Joint Director, Elementary Education. No doubt, the School Management has filed writ petition in W.P.No.28146 of 2005 challenging the said order and the same is pending. As rightly pointed out, even if the said writ petition is allowed, it is not in dispute that the approval cannot take effect from the date on which the Management sought for approval from the educational authorities. In the light of the same and in view of the assertion of the writ petitioner that she was not paid salary as Headmistress except for four months, we are of the view that the direction of the learned Judge cannot be faulted with. 13. As per the order dated 03.12.2001 and the order in Contempt Petition No.189 of 2002, it is but proper for the petitioner to approach the authorities. The fact remains that after expiry of four months period and of the fact that the decision of the Management was not acceptable by the educational authorities and unless and until the order is set aside by this Court, she is entitled to salary and other allowances as Headmistress of the first respondent school. As rightly pointed out, in view of the fact that on the date when the learned Judge passed an order i.e., on 01.04.2005, the appeal of the Management was pending before the Joint Director, the learned Judge has directed the School Management to pay a portion of the amount, namely, Rs.2.5 lakhs. Accordingly, we hold that the writ petitioner is entitled for the said amount and there is no error or infirmity in the order impugned. 14. It is made clear that in view of the pendency of the writ petition, viz., W.P.No.28146 of 2005, we are not expressing any opinion on the orders of the Joint Director, Elementary Education. Accordingly, we hold that the writ petitioner is entitled for the said amount and there is no error or infirmity in the order impugned. 14. It is made clear that in view of the pendency of the writ petition, viz., W.P.No.28146 of 2005, we are not expressing any opinion on the orders of the Joint Director, Elementary Education. It is for the parties to establish their case in the said writ petition. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed with the above observation. No costs.