Mr. V. Anandhamoorthy, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondents.
2 This writ petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the proceedings dated 16.02.2016 issued by the Chief Educational Officer, Dindigul, the second respondent herein and the proceedings dated 19.08.2016 issued by the Director of School Education, Chennai, the first respondent herein and also for a direction to the respondents to pay monetary benefits in terms of salary payable to the petitioner for the re-employment period from 17.09.2003 to 31.05.2004 within a time frame.
3 The facts in brief necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition run thus:
3.1 The petitioner was serving as Headmaster of High School, Sirgudi, Dindugul District. On attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2003, by virtue of several Government Orders, he was entitled to get the benefit of re-employment, as he retired in the middle of the academic year. Hence, he submitted a representation, based on which, he was permitted to continue in service on re-employment basis from 01.07.2003 to 31.05.2004 as Headmaster of the said High School, vide order dated 17.06.2013 passed by the second respondent and he also continued in the post of Headmaster from 01.07.2003 onwards on re-employment basis.
3.2 While so, in Tamil Nadu, there was a strike call given by the Government servants, including teachers, from 02.07.2003, in which, more than one lakh Government employees/teachers partook. In view of the mass strike in which many Government employees, including teachers partook, the Government, invoking the emergency power under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002, dismissed all those Government servants/teachers who partook in the strike by order dated 04.07.2003.
3.3 The said order was put to challenge before this Court unsuccessfully and finally, when the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court, the Government's order dismissing the Government servants, was set aside, as a result of which, the Government servants, including the petitioner, who were dismissed, were reinstated in service from 25.07.2003 3.4 After rejoining duty on 25.07.2003, the petitioner was again relieved from service by the second respondent vide order dated 17.09.2003, on the ground that while he was in service on re-employment basis, he had partaken in the strike called by the Government servants, which was assailed by the petitioner in W.P. No.17327 of 2007 (O.A. No.3796 of 2003), wherein, this Court, by order dated 18.11.2014, referring to the circumstances under which the petitioner was relieved, set aside the relieving order and directed the respondent therein to pay salary to the petitioner for the period from 17.09.2003 to 31.05.2004 within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
3.5 Notwithstanding the said order passed by this Court, the second respondent, vide proceedings dated 16.02.2016, informed the petitioner that he cannot be paid monetary benefits for the period from 17.09.2003 to 31.05.2004 during which he has not served owing to his participation in the Government servants' strike. The said proceedings was taken on appeal before the first respondent herein, who, by proceedings dated 19.08.2016, informed the petitioner that his appeal would be considered provided, he submits (i) all the copies of the proceedings referred to in the appeal, (ii) copy of the attendance register for the period in question and (iii) note from the second respondent.
3.6 Aggrieved by the aforesaid proceedings dated 16.02.2016 and 19.08.2016 issued by the second respondent and first respondent respectively, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
4 The main plank of contention of the petitioner is that he should be paid salary for the period he worked on re-employment basis, viz., from 17.09.2003 to 31.05.2004.
5 But, the stand taken by the second respondent in the impugned proceedings dated 16.02.2016 is that every teacher who retires in the middle of the academic year, should comply with three pre-conditions for getting the benefit of re-employment. Those conditions are as under:
1 Xa;t[ bgw;w gpd;dh; kWepakd mog;gilapy; gzpahw;w mDkjpf;fg;gLk; fhyj;jpy; gzpahw;Wk; elj;ij bjhlh;e;J jpUg;jp mspf;ff;Toajhf ,Uj;jy; ntz;Lk;/ 2 kW epakd fhyj;jpy; gzpahw;Wk; nghJ. md;dhuJ gzp njitapy;iy vd mwpe;jhYk;. xG';fPd Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;F cl;gl;lhYk;. vt;tpj Kd;dwptpg;g[kpd;wp cldoahf gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gLthh;/ 3 kW epakd fhyj;jpy; mjpfg;goahd Cjpak; vJt[k; bgw;W tH';fg;gl;oUe;jhy;. gpd;dh; fz;Lgpof;fg;gl;L jpUk;g brYj;j mwpt[Wj;jg;gl;lhy;. mj;bjhif jpUk;g brYj;jpl rk;kjk; bjhptpj;J cWjpbkhHp bgw;W mYtyf nfhg;gpy; itj;jy; ntz;Lk;/ 6 As per the above proceedings of the second respondent, the first pre-condition for getting the benefit of re-employment is that the employee's conduct during the period of re-employment should be satisfactory throughout. Admittedly, the petitioner has not put in continuous satisfactory service. Secondly, it is the admitted case of even the petitioner himself that he partook in the strike from 02.07.2003, as a result of which, he was dismissed from service by order dated 04.07.2003. Considering these facts, he was relieved from service on 17.09.2003. These facts were not at all brought to the notice of this Court while this Court passed the order dated 18.11.2014 in W.P. No.17327 of 2007.
7 The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that notwithstanding the order dated 18.11.2014 passed by this Court in W.P. No.17327 of 2007, if the petitioner has not got salary for the period from 17.09.2003 to 31.05.2004, he should have approached this Court, which, he did not choose to do and ergo, the present writ petition is hit by the principle of res judicata.
8 This Court finds merit and substance in the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader for the reason that, as referred to above, when the petitioner was relieved by order dated 17.09.2003 passed by the Chief Educational Officer, Dindigul, he called in question the said order in O.A. No.3796 of 2003, which was re-numbered on transfer to the file of this Court as W.P.No.17327 of 2007 and by order dated 18.11.2014, this Court had set aside the impugned order dated 17.09.2003 and directed the respondent to pay salary for the said period. Since no mention whatsoever has been made in the order dated 18.11.2014 passed by this Court to the effect that the petitioner has complied with the three pre-conditions which are sine qua non for getting the benefit of re-employment, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
Ex consequenti, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed as being devoid of merits. Costs made easy.
20.03.2017 cad To 1 The Director of School Education D.P.I. Compound College Road Chennai 600 006 2 The Chief Educational Officer Dindigul Dindigul District T. RAJA, J.
cad W.P. No.6699 of 2017 20.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in