THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN W.P.(MD).Nos.1359 and 1360 of 2014 and. Teachers case order

[1/25, 12:11] Sekarreporter1: WP(MD).Nos.1359 and 1360 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
[ORDERS RESERVED ON : 10.09.2020]
[ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON : 18.01.2021]
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
W.P.(MD).Nos.1359 and 1360 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.6702 of 2017
B.Deva Shanthini
Post Graduate Teacher,
St. Joseph’s Higher Secondary School,
Thiruthuvapuram,
Kanyakumari District. .. Petitioner in both W.Ps.
.. Vs ..
1. The Director of School Education,
D.P.I. Campus,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District – 629 001.
1/25
[1/25, 12:11] Sekarreporter1: WP(MD).Nos.1359 and 1360 of 2014
by the petitioner on various dates and consequently, direct the
respondents 2, 3 and 7 to disburse the terminal benefits within the time
frame fixed by this Court.
Prayer in W.P.No.1360/2014 :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling
for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the fourth
respondent in No.EDN/K/CM/FI5/06/2014, dated 09.01.2014 and quash
the same.
In W.P.No.1359/2014
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanan
For R.1 to R.3 : Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam,
Additional Government Pleader
For R.4 to R.6 : Mr. P.Muthuvel
for Issac Chamber
For R-7 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran
– – – – –
In W.P.No.1360/2014
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanan
For R.1 to R.3 : Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam,
Additional Government Pleader
For R.4 and R.5 : Mr. P.Muthuvel
for Issac Chamber
– – – – –
3/25
[1/25, 12:12] Sekarreporter1: WP(MD).Nos.1359 and 1360 of 2014
teacher.
d) As the petitioner refused to adhere with the instructions of the
Department, this respondent has every right to cancel such re-
employment. Therefore, there is no illegality in cancelling her re-
employment. In such being the case, I do not find any error in cancelling
the re-employment of the petitioner. In this view of the matter,
W.P.No.1360 of 2014 is liable to be dismissed.
26. In the result,
[i] W.P.No.1359 of 2014 is allowed treating the above said
disputed period as the period disputed under column in para 24 or to be
treated as duty. The private respondents 5 and 6 are directed to
implement the order and to send the pension proposal to the official
respondents 2 and 3 within a period of six weeks thereafter. The official
respondent shall forward the pension proposal to the 7th respondent
Accountant General within a period of eight weeks thereafter and the 7th
respondent is required to pass necessary orders in accordance with law
with least possible delay.
22/25

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME