Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

P.P.Seethapiratti vs The Joint Director

Madras High Court|02 February, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to provide salary for the period from 01.02.2011 to 16.02.2011 and the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension from 17.02.2011 to 16.06.2011 and the arrears of salary based on the 6th pay commission to the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.
2.The petitioner was originally working at the third respondent School as a Secondary Grade Teacher, since 04.06.1985. Thereafter, she was promoted as Headmistress at the third respondent School. While she was working as Headmistress of the third respondent School, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 17.02.2011. Subsequently, by order dated 14.06.2011, the petitioner's suspension was revoked by the third respondent school with effect from 17.06.2011. Therefore, the petitioner rejoined in service, after completion of the suspension period, since the same has been revoked by the said proceedings of the third respondent dated 14.06.2011. For the said period, the petitioner has not been paid the subsistence allowance and no salary has been paid. Therefore, the petitioner has come out with the present writ petition.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute, as the petitioner was originally suspended from service on 17.02.2011 by the third respondent School. Subsequently, by proceedings dated 14.06.2011, the said suspension order was revoked with effect from 17.06.2011. In view of the same, there can be no dispute that the petitioner's suspension period from 17.02.2011 till 17.06.2011, for which the petitioner would be entitled to get subsistence allowance and subsequently, since the petitioner's suspension has been revoked and she was permitted to continue in service, she would be entitled to get salary for the said period also.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents would submit that since the third respondent is the aided school, without the concurrence or approval of the official respondents, the order of suspension was issued and subsequently the same was requested to be extended beyond the period of two months. Since the same was not accepted by the official respondents, the petitioner's suspension had subsequently been revoked by the third respondent and therefore, for the said period, the petitioner would be entitled to subsistence allowance as well as the salary.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts, the following orders are passed in the writ petition:
Since the petitioner's suspension period from 17.02.2011 and 16.06.2011 had not been paid with any subsistence allowance and also the salary, the petitioner shall be entitled to claim subsistence allowance for the said period and if the same is already paid, deducting the same, the remaining amount of her salary shall also be paid to the petitioner. These directions shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
To
1.The Joint Director, Department of Elementary Education, O/o. Department of Elementary Education College Road, Chennai.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

P.P.Seethapiratti vs The Joint Director

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
02 February, 2017