Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 184 (TS)

G. Satyanarayana v. Georges Grammer School

2022-03-11

P.SREE SUDHA

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. G.Satyanarayana, a retired Telugu Pandit, plaintiff-appellant herein, filed this appeal against St. George’s Grammer School, Abids, Hyderabad, represented by its Warden-cum-Correspondent, defendant-respondent herein, against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2012 passed in O.S.No.899 of 2008 on the file of the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the Court below dismissed the suit filed for various reliefs. 2. The plaintiff would contend that the defendant admitted that his appointment was in accordance with the A.P. Government Rules, but failed to apply the same throughout his tenure and has not complied with the orders of the Court in I.A.No.87 of 2010. But the Court below has not taken any adverse inference against the defendant and his evidence was unrebutted. The proceedings issued by the defendant shows that it is following A.P. Rules, but the same was not considered by the Court below and requested to set aside the same. 3. O.S.No.899 of 2008 is filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration that his last pay is Rs.17,475/-, recovery of Rs.39,265/- towards the difference in pension and dearness relief, recovery of Rs.2,19,150/-towards difference in gratuity, recovery of Rs.2,88,132/- towards arrears of pay and allowance and for recovery of Rs.1,07,917/- towards encashment of leave salary. He joined in service as a Teacher on 01.04.1977 in the pay scale of Rs.250-430 plus allowance admissible under A.P. Government Rules and after completing 30 years of service, he retired on 30.09.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. He would further submit that he is entitled for the pay from time to time as per the revised rules and also for difference in HRA, CCA and leave salary admissible as per the orders of the A.P. Government, but the defendant failed to follow the Rules from 01.04.1999 and it resulted in monetary loss of Rs.2,88,130/- to the plaintiff. He would further submit that he is entitled for the pay from time to time as per the revised rules and also for difference in HRA, CCA and leave salary admissible as per the orders of the A.P. Government, but the defendant failed to follow the Rules from 01.04.1999 and it resulted in monetary loss of Rs.2,88,130/- to the plaintiff. He would further state that A.P. Government in its order in G.O.(P) No.114, Finance and Planning (F.W. PC-I) Department, dated 11.08.1999 revised the pay scale with effect from 01.07.1998 with monetary benefit from 01.04.1999 and the School Management implemented the same from 01.04.2003 and paid arrears of seven (7) months from September, 2000 to March, 2001 and failed to implement the rates of dearness allowance as per the orders of the State Government and the defendant also failed to implement the revised pay scale as per G.O.(P) No.213, Finance and Planning (P.C.-I) Department, dated 27.08.2005. He would also assert that as per the proceedings dated 17.10.2007, his sanctioned pension was Rs.6,050/- per month on the basis of last drawn pay of Rs.12,100/- per month. In fact, it should be Rs.8,738/- as last drawn pay of Rs.17,475/-. He would also assert that as per G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 30.01.1999 gratuity calculations were changed in respect of the employees retired on or before 20.01.1999 and as per G.O.Ms.No.249 dated 04.10.2005 the maximum limit of retirement gratuity under Rule 46 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 is Rs.3,50,000/-, and therefore he is entitled for Rs.17,590/-towards arrears of pension. As the defendant failed to pay the entitled amounts, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 03.03.2008 but it was returned with an endorsement ‘defendant away from station’. Therefore, he again sent another notice by courier but it was returned with an endorsement ‘refused’ and as such he filed the present seeking recovery of the amounts as stated above. 4. The defendant in its written statement would contend that the plaintiff accepted the pay as revised by the management without any grievance either in April, 1999 or in August, 2005. 4. The defendant in its written statement would contend that the plaintiff accepted the pay as revised by the management without any grievance either in April, 1999 or in August, 2005. The defendant admitted the appointment of the plaintiff in the scale of 250-430 plus allowances as admissible under A.P. Government Rules but stated that the Rules framed by the A.P. Government for the Teachers working in the Government Institutions and Aided Institutions are not applicable to it as it is not recognized by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and it is recognized by the ICSC, New Delhi. The defendant is an unaided institution and the management has to pay salaries out of its own funds and thus it has prerogative to fix the salaries of the staff working in it and the plaintiff is not entitled for D.A., HRA., CCA, and leave salary as claimed by him. The defendant would further assert that the plaintiff while in service received the salary without any protest and after retirement filed this suit with a mala fide intention. 5. In support of his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined his co-teacher who worked along with him as P.W.2 and marked exhibits A.1 to A.9 on his behalf. The correspondent of the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 and B.2. The Court below after considering the entire evidence on record dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the plaintiff preferred this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-defendant. 7. P.W.1 filed detailed chief affidavit along with the documents and during the cross-examination he deposed that he joined in service on 30.04.1977. His probation was confirmed in the year 1979 and he was appointed on the aided post. He also admitted that he did not make any protest in writing when he received retirement benefits. When he was directed to be retired prematurely on 31.05.2006, though his due date of retirement was 30.09.2007, he filed O.S.No.867 of 2006 on the file of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for quashing the order and obtained temporary injunction restraining the defendant from retiring him and as such he retired only after attaining the age of superannuation. 8. 8. P.W.2 was working as Teacher in the same school from the past 12 years and he deposed that P.W.1 was his colleague and in service from September, 2007. He also worked as Honorary President of the School Teachers Association and he took active part. The defendant-management retired the plaintiff one year prior to the age of superannuation and as such he filed suit being O.S.No.867 of 2006 and continued in service till the date of original retirement 30.07.2007. He further deposed that according to the order of appointment of P.W.1 he is entitled to his pay and allowance as per the orders of the Government issued from time to time. The Government Orders mentioned supra would apply to the plaintiff and other teachers also but the defendant-management did not apply the same to P.W.1. He also added that the defendant-management of the school sent a Circular dated 15.10.2003 to the parents of the students asserting that the defendant-management was paying pay scales and allowances to the teachers as per the Government Orders. He also deposed that P.W.1 filed a petition to summon the records of pay and acquittance registers and service books pertaining to four (4) teachers to establish that they were all paid salaries and allowances as per the Government Orders concerning the revision of pay scales, but the defendant-management deliberately failed to produce the records. 9. The Correspondent of the defendant-management was examined as D.W.1 and deposed that the defendant-management has not revised the pay of the plaintiff as per the Government Orders issued from time to time i.e., 01.04.1999, 11.08.1999 and 27.08.2005 to which he has not made any grievance either in April, 1999 or in August, 2005 and thus his claim is barred by limitation. He also deposed that the defendant institution is an unaided minority institution. The pay scales were fixed by the educational committee of the institution. If the individual is aggrieved by the fixation of pay, he should approach the education committee and thereafter the defendant management for redressal of the same. The plaintiff retired from service in the year 2007 and filed this suit on 28.03.2008. He further deposed that the emoluments paid higher than that of the plaintiff to another staff member would not give leverage to the plaintiff to make claim belatedly one year after his retirement. The plaintiff retired from service in the year 2007 and filed this suit on 28.03.2008. He further deposed that the emoluments paid higher than that of the plaintiff to another staff member would not give leverage to the plaintiff to make claim belatedly one year after his retirement. He specifically deposed that the Government Orders on which the plaintiff relied upon are not applicable to the defendant-management. 10. In the cross examination he deposed that he has been working as Warden and Correspondent of the defendant-management from 03.03.2010 and he do not know about premature retirement of the plaintiff on 31.05.2006 instead of 30.09.2007 and also regarding filing of the suit O.S.No.867 of 2006. He admitted that their school is recognized school. He do not know whether pension was fixed by applying Government Scales in cases of Papaiah Sastry, Jayakar Premanth, Chidambaram and Satya Raj. It was suggested that the teacher’s association represented the defendant-management for several times regarding applying of Government scales but it was not considered by the management. 11. By order dated 22.03.1977 of the defendant-management the plaintiff was appointed on 01.04.1977 as a Telugu Teacher in pay scale 250-10-430 on an initial basic pay of Rs.250/- plus usual allowances admissible under A.P. Government Rules. He was promoted as Grade I Pandit on 17.12.1980 with a basic pay of Rs.575/- from 01.12.1980. 12. The defendant-management would assert that it was not under the control of the A.P. Government but it is under the control of ICSC, New Delhi, and as such it is not bound by the orders issued by the A.P. Government, regarding fixation of pay and other allowances to the employees. But in the appointment order it was specifically mentioned that the employee is entitled for usual allowances admissible under the A.P. Government Rules. The defendant-management has not filed any document to show that it is working under the ICSC, New Delhi, and exempted from the Government Orders of the A.P. regarding pay fixation. But in the appointment order it was specifically mentioned that the employee is entitled for usual allowances admissible under the A.P. Government Rules. The defendant-management has not filed any document to show that it is working under the ICSC, New Delhi, and exempted from the Government Orders of the A.P. regarding pay fixation. P.W.1 in his evidence and also in his legal notice clearly stated that the school management implemented the orders of the Government from 01.04.2003 and paid arrears for seven (07) months from September 2000 to March, 2001 and it failed to follow the rules that are in vogue from time to time, and therefore, it is clear that the defendant-management obliged the orders of the Government for a certain period and now it cannot advocate that the said orders are not binding on it. P.W.2 in his evidence clearly stated that the Government Orders mentioned by P.W.1 were applied to him and other teachers but they were not applied to P.W.1. It is also on record that P.W.1 was retired one year prior to the superannuation and again continued in service only as per the orders of the Court and this clearly shows that the defendant management has some grievance against the plaintiff and thus, it deprived him all the legitimate benefits willfully, though the same were extended to P.W.2 and other teachers. D.W.1 in his evidence specifically stated that he do not known whether pension was fixed by applying Government scales in cases of Papaiah Sastry, Jayakar Premanth, Chidambaram and Satya Raj. Though P.W.1 filed I.A. in the suit to call for the service records and acquittance registers of the concerned teachers, it was allowed by the Court, the defendant management did not file the same deliberately and thus it gives strength to the version of P.W.2 who stated that the said Government Orders were applied to him and other teachers but not to P.W.1. P.W.2 also stated that in a Circular dated 15.10.2003 the defendant-management claimed that it is paying the pay scales as per the Government Orders. 13. The defendant-management mainly contend that the plaintiff received the salaries during his tenure and he has not raised any objection and revised salaried were not paid to him in the years 1999 and 2005 but filed the suit after his retirement. 13. The defendant-management mainly contend that the plaintiff received the salaries during his tenure and he has not raised any objection and revised salaried were not paid to him in the years 1999 and 2005 but filed the suit after his retirement. But, they themselves admitted that merely because the amounts were paid to other staff members would not give the plaintiff a leavage to claim the amount after his retirement. This clearly shows that the management paid the pay and allowances to the other staff members as stated by P.W.2 but denied the same to P.W.1 deliberately without any reason. P.W.2 in his evidence specifically stated that the said benefit was not extended to P.W.1 but applied to himself and other staff members after the plaintiff retirement, and therefore, the argument of the defendant that the plaintiff approached the Court belatedly one year after the retirement is not tenable. The defendant willfully not applied the Government Orders to P.W.1 till his retirement and extended the same benefit to the other staff members who worked along with the plaintiff after his retirement and thus rightly approached the Court. The Court below without considering the above factors dismissed the suit basing on the arguments of the management. Therefore, the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside. The plaintiff entitled for declaration that his last pay is Rs.17,475/-, recovery of Rs.39,265/- towards the difference in pension and dearness relief, recovery of Rs.2,19,150/- towards difference in gratuity, recovery of Rs.2,88,132/- towards arrears of pay and allowance and for recovery of Rs.1,07,917/- towards encashment of leave salary. 14. In the result, the Appeal is allowed with costs by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2012 passed in O.S.No.899 of 2008 on the file of the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 15. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed in the light of this final judgment.