Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2420 (MAD)

N. S. Meenakshi v. Rameswara Murugan & Another

2008-07-14

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2008
Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr. S.N. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This court by order dated 011. 2006 made in W.P. No.21006 of 2006 issued the following directions: “For all the above said reasons, the writ petition is allowed, the respondents are directed to grant approval to the appointment of Tmt.N.S. Meenakshi as Headmistress with effect from 25.09.1998. However, it is made clear that only on completion of service as 5 years as Headmistress, the petitioner is entitled to the salary attached to the post of Headmistress which dates fall only on 25.09.2003. The Said Tmt. N.S. Meenakshi is entitled to the salary of secondary grade teacher from 25.09.1998 to 24.09.2003 and the salary attached to the post of Headmistress from 25.09.2003. The petitioner will not be entitled to salary for the period from 21.07.2006 to the date on which she resumes the post of Headmistress. However, this period will be accounted for continuity of service and other benefits. The petitioner will be restored to her position as Headmistress within a period of 4 weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this order. The petitioner has not been paid any salary from the date of her appointment. The entire arrears shall be paid within four months thereafter.” 3. It seems a writ appeal happened to be filed in W.A. No.442/2007, which came to be dismissed on 20.03.2007. Thereafter, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai (2nd respondent herein) passed an order on 17.06.2008 in his proceedings Na.Ka. No.418/A3/04 approving the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress of Sri Venkateswara Vidyalaya Primary School with effect from 25.09.1998 with the condition that till she completes the necessary experience of 5 years, she would not be paid the salary of headmistress and that she would be paid the salary of the secondary grade teacher up to 24.09.2003 and the salary applicable to the Headmistress of primary schools from 25.09.2003. The said order has been passed in compliance with the order of this court dated 011. 2006 passed in writ petition No.21006/2006. 4. However, it is obvious that the said order was passed beyond the period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The said order has been passed in compliance with the order of this court dated 011. 2006 passed in writ petition No.21006/2006. 4. However, it is obvious that the said order was passed beyond the period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The failure to pass such an order of approval till 20.03.2007 cannot be said to be a willful violation of the order as a Writ Appeal had been filed and the same was pending. But, it is obvious from the order of the 2nd respondent dated 17.06.2008 that the said order was not passed within four weeks at least from the date of disposal of the writ appeal. Hence it is quite clear that the respondents have not chosen to pass necessary orders of approval within the time granted by the Court. However, besides citing the difficulties experienced by the respondents in passing such an order within the time granted by the court, the learned Government Advocate submits that the respondents tendered their apology for not passing the order in time and that on order could be passed accepting apology tendered on behalf of the respondents. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order of this court dated 011. 2006 comprises two parts in it: One for the passing of an order of approval and the other for the payment of arrears of salary. Of Course, the second part of the direction was to the effect that the arrears shall be paid within four weeks from the date of passing an order of approval. The order of approval has been passed on 17.06.2008. Still there are a couple of days left for the respondent’s to comply with the second part of the order. Under such circumstances, this court deems it fit to close the petition after recording compliance with the first part of the order of this court. Witness the Hon’ble Thiru. Asok Kumar Ganguly, the Chief Justice of High Court at Madras, as aforesaid, this the 14th day of July, 2008.