M. Laxminarayana Vs. the Secretary, A.P. Residential Educational Institution Society - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase.....orders.r. nayak, j. 1. the petitioner complaining that the respondent authorities have not paid any pensionary and other fringe benefits on attaining the age of superannuation has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to disburse all the outstanding dues to the petitioner with interest the rate of 25% per annum from the respective dates and with exemplary costs. 2. in response to the rule nisi, the respondents have filed counter affidavit admitting the claim of the petitioner. it is stated that till date due to lack of funds they could not pay the outstanding dues to the petitioner and that the same would be paid soon after receipt of budget sanction for the year 1996-97. the counter affidavit was sworn to by the 1st respondent on 22.8.1996. at the time of hearing none appeared nor any representation was made on behalf of the respondents though the respondents are represented by a counsel. admittedly, on attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner had to be paid the following pension and other fringe benefits.1. regular monthly pension w.e.f. 1.7.1994rs. 2,600/-2. d.c.r.g.rs. 65,000/-3. commutation pension valuers. 1,08,701/-3. the petitioner is.....

Judgment:

ORDER

S.R. Nayak, J.

1. The petitioner complaining that the respondent authorities have not paid any pensionary and other fringe benefits on attaining the age of superannuation has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to disburse all the outstanding dues to the petitioner with interest the rate of 25% per annum from the respective dates and with exemplary costs.

2. In response to the Rule Nisi, the respondents have filed counter affidavit admitting the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that till date due to lack of funds they could not pay the outstanding dues to the petitioner and that the same would be paid soon after receipt of budget sanction for the year 1996-97. The counter affidavit was sworn to by the 1st respondent on 22.8.1996. At the time of hearing none appeared nor any representation was made on behalf of the respondents though the respondents are represented by a counsel. Admittedly, on attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner had to be paid the following pension and other fringe benefits.

1. Regular monthly pension w.e.f. 1.7.1994Rs. 2,600/-2. D.C.R.G.Rs. 65,000/-3. Commutation pension valueRs. 1,08,701/-

3. The petitioner is entitled to the above pension and pensionary benefits in terms of the proceedings of the Director of Public Libraries, dated 26.6.1995. Since no good ground is stated by the respondents to withhold the payment of the pension and other benefits, there is absolutely no justification for the respondents not to pay the pension and other benefits though the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation as far back as on 30.6.1994.

4. In that view of the matter and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF KERALA vs. M.PADMANABHAN NAIR & OTHERS ( 1 ) & O.P. GUPTA vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ( 2 ), we dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents to pay all the outstanding pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner forthwith with 12% interest accrued thereon till the date of payment. The petitioner is also entitled to the cost of this writ petition quantified at Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) payable by the respondents within a period of one month from today. No costs.