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

Excerpt:
(i) service - regularisation - government established residential college without sanctioning staff to maintain hostel - government later on retained control of college but handed over management of hostel to society without budgetary allocation - petitioner appointed by hostel committee demanded regularisation of service - government liable to maintain hostel in residential college - such liability renders petitioner entitled to regularisation of service. (ii) extension of time scales of pay - principal of college recommended hostel society regarding time scale of pay - held, society was liable for payment subject to reimbursement from government - on regularisation petitioner entitled to claim consequential benefits. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction 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 namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - 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.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 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.

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.