Madras High Court
The Secretary vs G.Suganthy on 3 October, 2019
Bench: S.Manikumar, D. Krishnakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
W.A.No.3533 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.22671 of 2019
1.The Secretary
Ministry of School Education,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director,
Directorate of School Education,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Education Officer,
SLB South Road, Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.G.Suganthy
2.The Corporate Manager,
Corporate Management Schools,
Kanyakumari Diocese,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
1/21
http://www.judis.nic.in
Prayer: WRIT APPEAL filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
Order dated 04.09.2018 made in W.P.No.12591 of 2010.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Karthikeyan
Government Advocate.
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.] Challenge in this appeal is to an order made in W.P.No.12591 of 2010, dated 04.09.2018, by which the Writ Court, while setting aside the order dated 24.02.2010 of the Director of School Education, Chennai, directed the appellants herein, to regularise the services of the first respondent/writ petitioner from the date of her appointment dated 27.07.2000 and to pay arrears of salary for the period from 27.07.2000 to 05.06.2002.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that the writ petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant in Duthie Government Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil on 27.07.2000. According to the writ petitioner, her service was regularised with effect from 05.06.2002. Grievance of the writ petitioner is that service rendered by her between 27.07.2000 to 04.06.2002 has not been regularised and salary has not been paid for the said period. In 2/21 http://www.judis.nic.in this regard, she made several representations to the appellant authorities.
Since the appellant authorities have not passed orders on the representations of the writ petitioner/first respondent, she filed W.P.No.46412 of 2006. Vide order dated 13.03.2009, this Court directed the Director of School Education, Chennai, the second appellant herein, to consider her representation dated 10.04.2006 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after affording opportunity to the Corporate Manager, Corporate Management Schools, Kanyakumari District/ the second respondent herein.
Pursuant to the order of this Court, dated 13.03.2009 in W.P.No.46412 of 2006, the second appellant passed the impugned order rejecting the request of the writ petitioner. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner has filed W.P.No.12591 of 2010.
3. Before the writ court, Director of School Education, Chennai, the 2nd appellant herein, in his counter affidavit has contended that the Chief Educational Officer is the competent authority to fix the staff strength based on the strength, as on 1st August of the every year in relation to Government and Aided Higher Secondary Schools. Accordingly, the position of fixation with regard to Tamil Pandit posts pertaining to the present school has been fixed by 3/21 http://www.judis.nic.in the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil and it was found that 4 Tamil Pandits, who were working in the said school were surplus. Thus, the appointment of the writ petitioner from 03.08.2000 against the post of Tamil Pandit which fell vacant consequent to promotion of the incumbent as Headmistress is not permissible. According to the second appellant, even though the writ petitioner was said to be appointed on 03.08.2000, proposal seeking approval for appointment was received by the department only on 10.02.2003. In such circumstances, approval for appointment could not be granted. However, as per the revised proposal sent by the Corporate Manager, stating the date of appointment of the writ petitioner as 05.06.2002, her appointment was approved from 05.06.2002. Since the writ petitioner was appointed by the Management on its own volition without reference to the staff fixation done by the Chief Educational Officer for the academic year 2000-2001, writ petitioner is not entitled for approval of appointment with effect from 27.07.2000.
4. Before the Writ Court, contention has been made by the writ petitioner that the second appellant has failed to consider that the 2nd respondent herein, being a recognized body of the 2nd appellant, and the 2nd respondent herein having given appointment order dated 27.07.2000 as B.T. 4/21 http://www.judis.nic.in Assistant to the writ petitioner, her services ought to have been regularized and paid the salary, as per the Government norms from the date of appointment i.e. 27.07.2000. But the second appellant herein, has approved the appointment only from 05.06.2002 and rejected the representation of the writ petitioner dated 10.04.2006, which is violative of Article 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India.
5. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, before the Writ Court, submitted that though the writ petitioner was stated to have been appointed on 03.08.2000, proposal seeking approval for appointment was received only on 10.02.2003. In such circumstances, approval for appointment could not granted. However, as requested by the Correspondent, vide letter dated 07.04.2003 and since the Corporate Manager submitted a revised proposal showing the date of appointment of the writ petitioner as 05.06.2002, her appointment was approved from 05.06.2002. Therefore, there is no arbitrariness in the impugned order as alleged by the writ petitioner.
5/21http://www.judis.nic.in
6. Grievance of the writ petitioner before the writ court is that she was appointed on 27.07.2000 in Duthie Higher Secondary School for Girls, Nagercoil as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in the existing permanent vacancy as the incumbent Mrs.N.Deverethnam was promoted as Headmistress to the Hooker Memorial Higher Secondary School, Neyyoor by the Corporate Management of the Kanyakumari C.S.I. Diocese.
7. Adverting to the submissions, and the material on record, writ court ordered thus:-
"9. It appears that earlier the petitioner had filed W.P.No.46412 of 2006 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation dated 10.04.2006 and 05.07.2006 and to regularise the service of the petitioner from the date of appointment dated 27.07.2000 and to pay the pending salary arrears as per the Government norms. By an order dated 13.03.2009, this Court disposed of the writ petition. The operative portion of the order reads thus:
"2. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the second respondent would duly consider the said representation of the petitioner dated 10.4.2006 ad pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. She would further submit that whether the petitioner is entitled for regularisation with effect from 27.7.2000, and whether she is entitled for salary for the period between 27.7.2000 and 4.6.2002 would be duly considered by the second respondent in accordance with law.6/21
http://www.judis.nic.in
3.In view of the above position, without expressing any opinion regarding the request of the petitioner made in her representation dated 10.4.2006, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the said representation of the petitioner dated 10.4.2006 and pass final order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after affording opportunity to the fourth respondent. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs."
10. The second respondent issued the impugned order dated 24.02.2010 wherein it has been stated that they have called for remarks from the fourth respondent and in its remarks, the fourth respondent stated that pursuant to the no objection given by the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil and as per G.O.Ms.No.1910, they had appointed teachers for the year 2000-2001 before 31.07.2000. It is also stated that the petitioner G.Suganthy has got appointment on 27.07.2000 and requested the second respondent to pay salaries to her.
11. The aforesaid remarks of the Corporate Manager, as stated by the second respondent in the impugned order, would clearly establish that the petitioner was issued with an appointment order as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) from 27.07.2000. According to the second respondent, the proposal seeking approval of appointment of the petitioner dated 27.07.2000 was received by the Department only on 10.02.2003 and therefore, approval of appointment could not be granted as the same was belated.
12. It appears that the second respondent has failed to consider the fact that the Management has sent the proposal belatedly and the petitioner has no role in sending the proposal for approving the appointment. Further, the petitioner cannot be expected to know whether the post is excessive or not even before joining the service and hence, the petitioner cannot be blamed and 7/21 http://www.judis.nic.in also cannot be deprived of her salary and also regularisation for the period which she had worked.
13. It also appears from the materials available on record that the petitioner was appointed on 27.07.2000 in the regular vacancy caused due to the promotion of one Mrs.N.Devarathinam, which is evident from the Proceedings of the Corporation Manager, C.S.I. Kanyakumari Diocese, Nagercoil, dated 27.07.2000, wherein it has been stated as under:
"Ref: Minutes of the Board of School Education dated 26.07.2000. Mrs.G.Suganthy, B.T. Tamil, Waiting List 13/92, is informed that she/he is posted as B.T. Asst. Tamil at Duthie GHSS., Nagercoil with effect from 27.7.2000 vice Mrs.N.Devaretnam, promoted. He/She should report to the Correspondent of the above school on the forenoon of 27.07.2000 with all his/her certificates in original, failing which this order will be cancelled and his/her name deleted from the waiting list. This is subject to the approval of the department."
14. In the letter dated 05.08.2000 addressed by the Corporate Management Schools, Kanyakumari Diocese C.S.I. to the petitioner, it has been stated as under:
"You are asked to meet the Corporation Manager, Diocese Schools, Nagercoil at 10.00 AM on Tuesday, the 8th August 2000 and to get the appointment order."
15. From the above, it is seen that the Corporate Management had appointed the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) with effect from 27.07.2000 in the existing vacancy and the petitioner was directed to report on 27.07.2000 with all certificates. Accordingly, the petitioner had also reported for duty and was working with effect from 27.07.2000. The said fact was also admitted by the fourth respondent.
8/21http://www.judis.nic.in
16. Though the fourth respondent appointed the petitioner on 27.07.2000, they have not sent the proposal for approval to the Department immediately and only after a delay of 2 = years on 10.02.2003, the fourth respondent sent the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner to the respondent authorities. Since the proposal was sent by the fourth respondent belatedly, the Department has not granted approval. Thereafter, on 07.04.2003, the fourth respondent issued a modified proceedings to the petitioner, by marking copy to the Bishop, CSI Kanyakumari Diocese, the District Educational Officer, Nagercoil and the Correspondent, Duthie Girls Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil, stating as under:
"In partial modification to the orders issued vide this office letter No.CM 39 A/2000/2001 dated 27.7.2000, the following revised orders are issued.
Tmt.G.Suganthi, B.T. Tamil WL 13/92 is informed that she is posted as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in Duthie Girls Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil with effect from the forenoon of 5.6.2002 vice Tmt.N.Devaretnam promoted."
17. Since there was a delay on the part of the fourth respondent in sending the proposal to the respondent authorities, subsequently, they had issued a revised modification order stating that the petitioner was posted as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in Duthie Girls Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil with effect from 05.06.2002, the same cannot be accepted for the reason that the fourth respondent themselves admitted that the petitioner was appointed on 27.07.2000, which is evident from their appointment order dated 27.07.2000. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she should be regularised from 27.07.2000 and not from 05.06.2002. Admittedly, the petitioner had worked in the school in question for a period of nearly 22 months without salary.
18. No contra records have been produced before this Court to show that the petitioner had not worked from 27.07.2000. Though in the impugned order it has been stated that the Management of the school had committed a 9/21 http://www.judis.nic.in mistake in appointing the petitioner in the surplus post with effect from 27.07.2000, nothing has been produced by the respondent authorities to show that her appointment was illegal. In fact, in the remarks submitted to the second respondent, the fourth respondent has clearly stated that the petitioner has got the appointment from 27.07.2000. There was also no record to show that the petitioner was appointed in a non-sanctioned post. Therefore, when the petitioner was duly appointed with effect from 27.07.2000 and pursuant to the appointment order, she had rendered service from 27.07.2000, the petitioner is entitled to get her regularisation of her service with effect from 27.07.2000 and also arrears of salary for the period from 27.07.2000 to 04.06.2002.
19. On a cursory reading of the impugned order, this Court finds that while considering the representation of the petitioner, the second respondent has not looked into the factual aspects that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and only the Management of the school delayed in sending the proposal to the respondent authorities. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the second respondent has failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner and has mechanically passed the impugned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside.
20. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the second respondent dated 24.02.2010 is set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of her appointment dated 27.07.2000 and to pay arrears of salary as per the Government norms for the period from 27.07.2000 to 05.06.2002. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
8. Being aggrieved instant appeal is filed on the following grounds:-
10/21http://www.judis.nic.in
(i) Writ Court ought to have considered that the teachers should be appointed in schools in accordance with the teacher-
students ratio prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.525 (School Education) dated 29.12.1997 with effect from 01.06.1998.
(ii) Writ Court ought to have considered that as per GO No.525, the State Government sanctioned 9 Tamil Pandit posts to Duthie Higher Secondary School for Girls, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District prior to the academic year 2000-2001 based on the student strength / sections in standard VI to X.
(iii) Writ Court ought to have considered that as per Staff Fixation settled by the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil for the academic year 2000-2001 vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 9330/Aa4/2000 dated 09.01.2001, Duthie Higher Secondary School for Girls, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District was eligible for only 5 Tamil Pandits, and 4 Tamil Pandits as surplus.
(iv) Writ Court ought to have considered that as per Staff Fixation settled by the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil for the academic year 2001-2002 vide proceedings in Mu. Mu. No. 7898/Aa4/2001 dated 14.02.2002, Duthie Higher Secondary School for Girls, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District was eligible for only 3 Tamil Pandits, and 6 Tamil Pandits as surplus.
(v) Writ Court ought to have considered that as per Staff Fixation settled by the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil for the academic year 2002-2003 vide proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 9477/Aa4/2002 dated 26.11.2002, Duthie Higher Secondary School 11/21 http://www.judis.nic.in for Girls, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District was eligible for only 7 Tamil Pandits, and 1 Tamil Pandit as surplus.
(vi) Writ Court ought to have considered that the school is eligible to accommodate the staff strength based on the Staff Fixation issued by the CEO for every year and that the 1st respondent was appointed as Tamil Pandit in Duthie Higher Secondary School for Girls, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District on 27.07.2000 i.e, the academic year 2000-2001 in the promotion vacancy of Mrs. N.Devarathinam.
(vii) Writ Court ought to have considered that as per Staff Fixation for the academic year 2000-2001, Duthie Higher Secondary School for Girls, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District was eligible for only 5 Tamil Pandits, and 4 Tamil Pandits were found as surplus, and the 2nd respondent have no legal right to appoint the 1st respondent as Tamil Pandit in the academic year 2000- 2001.
(viii) Writ Court ought to have considered that when the school as well as the 2nd respondent has no right to appoint the 1st respondent as Tamil Pandit on 27.07.2000, the 2nd respondent alone is liable to disburse salary to the 1st respondent, and education department is not responsible for the same.
(ix) Writ Court ought to have considered that the State Government would approve the appointment of teachers if the school is eligible for the post as per the Staff Fixation issued by the CEO/the DEO and that if the school had appointed a teacher against a surplus post, as per the Staff Fixation, the school alone 12/21 http://www.judis.nic.in is liable to pay salary to the teacher, and the education department is not responsible for the same.
9. Heard Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate for the appellant.
10. Appointment order of Tmt.G.Suganthi/writ petitioner, is extracted hereunder:-
Proceedings of the Corporate Manager, CSI Kanyakumari Diocese, Nagercoil, CM 156 A/2002-2003 dt.7.4.2003. Sub: Education - Aided Secondary - Appointment of Tmt.
G. Suganthi, Tamil Pandit, Duthie Girls Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil - regarding.
Ref: i) This Office Letter No. (A/2000-2001) dt.27.7.2000.
ii) Request from Tmt. G. Suganthi dt. 5.4.2003.
In partial modification to the orders issued vide this office letter No. CM 39 A/2000-2001 dated 27.7.2000, the following revised orders are issued.
Tmt. G. Suganthi, B.T. Tamil WL.13/92 is informed that she is posted as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in Duthie Girls Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil with effect from the forenoon of 5.6.2002 vice Tmt.N.Devaretnam promoted.
Corporate Manager To Tmt.G.Suganthi 13/21 http://www.judis.nic.in
11. Proceeding of the Joint Director of School Education,(Secondary Grade Educations), Chennai, in Mu.Mu.No.22849/D.1(E.3)/09, dated 24.02.2010, reads thus:-
PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATIONS (SECONDARY GRADS EDUCATIONS); TAMIL NADU CHENNAI.600 006 Mu. Mu. No.22849/D.1(E.3)/09 Dt: 24.2.2010 Sub: Education - Secondary Grade Educations - Govt Aided Schools - Judgment - Kannyakumari Dist - Nagercoil -LT Girls Higher Secondary School - Tamil Teacher - smt. G. Suganthi - has filed W.P.No.46412- 2006 - Chennai High Court has passed orders on 13.3.2009 - implementation - regarding Ref: 1) WP No.46412/2006 filed by one Smt. G. Suganthi -
Tamil Teacher - LT Girls Higher Secondary School at Nagercoil, Kannyakumari District - judgment -
dt : 13.3.2009
2) Lr dt: 27.4.2009 of the District Edl. Officer, Nagercoil.
"""""
That the appointment of the above said Smt. G. Suganthi, who has been working as a Tamil Graduate Teacher at LT.Girls Higher Secondary School at Nagercoil, has been approved by the 14/21 http://www.judis.nic.in District Educational Officer at Nagercoil, on 5.6.2002 and thereafter, until this date, she has been drawing her wages accordingly; In the above circumstances, in the above WP No. 46412/2006, on the file of Hon'ble High Court, Chennai, in its order dt : 13.3.2009, it has been directed to consider the demand of the above petitioner dt: 10.4.06 and whereby, her stand may kindly be Informed to the Manager of 4th respondent - Kannyakumari Diocese Joint Management School, and accordingly, by giving some time for such considerations and thereafter to issue appropriate orders thereon, was directed by the Hon’ble Court as stated above;
Further, with a view to implement the orders of judgment dated: 13.3.2009, there was a request petition dt:10.4.06 of the above petitioner Smt. G. Suganthi a long-with the notes made by the District Educational Officer/ Nagercoil / has been received thereof; That in the office letters dt; 21.10.09 and 7.11.2009 of this office / it was requested before the above said Manager of the Kannyakumari Diocese Joint Management Schools, to inform about his stand in the above matter;
That the Personal Assistant to the above Manager of Kannyakumari C S I Diocese Joint Management Schools has informed his stand to the above demand of the petitioner -
Smt. G. Suganthi dated: 10.4.06 as mentioned below; That during Educational Year, 1999-2000, since the Chief Educational officer / Nagercoil, has issued No Objection Certificate to the Schools , which are functioning under our 15/21 http://www.judis.nic.in control, in accordance with the GO Ms No.1820 of the Govt of Tamil Nadu, for the Educational year-2000-2001, there was an appointment has been made by us, just prior to 31.7.2000; Accordingly, the above said Smt.G.Suganthi has been appointed as a Tamil Teacher on and with effect from 27.7.2000 onwards; Hence, to the above petitioner, there may be wages be disbursed to her, was requested by him thereof;
But LT. Girls Higher Secondary School, through its Correspondent Letter No.954/03 dt ;10.2.2003, it has been informed that the above said smt. G. Suganthi has been appointed as a Teacher on & w.e.f. 30.6.2000 onwards; For the Kannyakumari District LT Girls Higher Secondary School for the year, 2000-01, it was informed that there were 4 Tamil Teachers are in spare teachers, for the year 2001-02, there are 6 Tamil Teachers are spare teachers, for the year, 2002-03, one Tamil Teacher is a spare teacher, have been fixed and accordingly there were orders being issued thereof; That during the year 2000-01, when there were 4 Tamil Teachers are working as spare teachers, due to promotions, there was vacancies arose, and in that Tamil Teacher post, the above mentioned teacher has been appointed on & w.e.f. 3.8.2000 onwards and whereby, as on 10.3.03, since there was a demand for approval of such appointment has been received belatedly, and because, the reason for such delay was not found to be acceptable in nature, and while so, since the above mentioned 4 posts of Tamil Teachers have been found as 16/21 http://www.judis.nic.in Spare Teachers, the concerned teachers appointment could not be approved by the Appointing Authority; However, as per the letter dt ; 7.4.03 of the Correspondent during the educational years 2000-01 and 2001-02, since the Graduate Tamil Teacher post was found as spare Teacher, there was an amended approval of appointment of teacher on & w.e.f. 5.6.02 onwards , there was a demand has been received from the above said Manager of the above said KANNYAKUMARI LT GIRLS HR. SEC, SCHOOL ( CSI Diocese), & whereby the above appointment of smt. Suganthi.G has been approved on & w.e.f. 5.6.2002 onwards as stated above; Hence, in the above mentioned circumstances, at the above mentioned LT (Girls ) Higher Secondary School, in the declared place of spare teacher post, from 27.7.2000 onwards, the above said Teacher - Smt G. Suganthi has been appointed, is a mistake on the part of the above management hereto; Due to the above said mistake, since this department cannot be held responsible for the same in any manner, and however, by approving her appointment on & w.e.f. 5.6.02 onwards, since she has been drawing her wages, the above demand of the above Teacher dt ; 10.4.06 cannot be accepted and accordingly the said demand has been hereby rejected and issued the orders of rejection herewith;
Sd. for School Education Director To Smt.G.Suganthi, Graduate Tamil Teacher, LT girls Hr. Sec. School, Nagercoil; Kannyakumari District.
17/21http://www.judis.nic.in
12. Reading of the order dated 07.04.2003, shows that the respondent has been appointed as Tamil Pandit on 27.07.2000, in the promotion vacancy of one Mrs.Devarathinam. Even as per the version of the appellants and as per G.O.Ms.No.525 (School Education) dated 29.12.1997, the State Government have sanctioned 9 Tamil Pandit posts to Duthie Higher Secondary School for Girls, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, prior to the academic year 2000-2001 based on the student strength/sections in standards VI to X. No objection has been given by the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, and it is the version of the management that as per G.O.Ms.No.1910, they had appointed the first respondent before 31.07.2000. It is well known that staff fixation is done in the month of August, every year and during the course of hearing of this appeal, it is also fairly admitted by the learned Government Advocate.
13. In the case on hand, even as per the version of the appellants, staff fixation has been done by the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, for the academic year 2000-2001, vide proceedings Na.Ka.No.9330/Aa4/2000, dated 09.01.2001 by which Duthie Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, was eligible for only 5 Tamil Pandits, and 4 Tamil Pandits as surplus.
18/21http://www.judis.nic.in
14. Thus, it is evident that the respondent has been appointed in a sanctioned post, much before the refixation of staff strength, and the same cannot be said to be illegal, moreso, when "No Objection Certificate" was given by the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil. It is not in dispute that the respondent had worked as Tamil Pandit from 27.07.2000 onwards.
15. Staff fixation fixed on 09.01.2001 by the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, can only be prospective and would not date back to 27.07.2000, on the day when the respondent was appointed. On the said date, the post was not found surplus.
16. As rightly observed by the Writ Court, merely because of management has belatedly sent the proposal that would not nullify the appointment made on 27.07.2000, prior to staff fixation by the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil. Having appointed the first respondent on 27.07.2000, much prior to 31.07.2000 and before the staff fixation done on 09.01.2001, management ought to have persuaded the education department, instead, they have reissued another order, and sent the proposal on 10.02.2003 after three years. As rightly observed by the writ court, for the fault of the 19/21 http://www.judis.nic.in management, respondent should not be made to suffer by depriving the salary for the period between 27.07.2000 and 05.06.2002.
17. Going through the material on record, we do not find any error in the impugned order. Writ Appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, CMP is closed.
[S.M.K., J.] [D.K.K., J.] 03.10.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes.
Speaking / Non-Speaking Order dm 20/21 http://www.judis.nic.in S.MANIKUMAR, J., and D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J., dm W.A.No.3533 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.22671 of 2019 03.10.2019 21/21 http://www.judis.nic.in