A Division bench of the Madras High Court <\/b>comprising of Justice G. Jayachandran <\/b>and Justice R. Poornima<\/b> held that the re-employment of faculty retiring mid-academic year is mandatory, but if there are pending disciplinary proceedings and further the ‘no work, no pay’ principle applies, then the re-employment is not allowed.<\/p>\n
Background Facts <\/b><\/p>\n
The appellant served in the Arulmigu Palanianadavar College of Arts and Science at Palani as Head of the Zoology Department. He attained superannuation on 31.03.2014. The appellant made a representation dated 06.02.2014 for re-employment till the end of academic year 2014 by relying on the proceedings issued by the Director of Collegiate Education (DCE)<\/b> dated 06.06.2012. The Deputy Commissioner\/Secretary of the College of Arts & Culture issued show cause notice dated 24.03.2014, asking him to submit the written explanation whether the extension\/reemployment should be denied, since the departments proceedings were pending against him. The appellant sent an explanation on 11.03.2014 stating that the Director of Collegiate Education has made it clear that all the extension\/reemployment should be offered to all the teacher, who attain superannuation on the middle of the academic year and it is made mandatory therein. But the request was rejected by the Management in view of a disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant. <\/p>\n
Further appellant challenged the charge memo in another petition stating that the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules<\/b> were not applicable to him as he was working in the private aided college. But the Petition was dismissed.<\/p>\n
The appellant filed another Writ Petition seeking salary for the month of April and May, 2014 on the grounds that he had been given re-employment for two months period till the end of the academic year. He filed the petition on basis of the letters dated 16.04.2014 and 20.05.2014 issued by the Controller of Examination, Madurai Kamarajar University requesting the appellant to attend the Board meeting of examiners and few other records like his leave letter dated 09.04.2014 and internal marks statement.<\/p>\n
The Single Judge held that the prayer was only for seeking extension of two months i.e., after the superannuation, for the months of April and May in 2014. But it was already 2017 and nothing survived in the matter. Hence, the Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous.<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the writ Appeal to set aside the order passed by the single judge.<\/p>\n
It was submitted by the appellant that though the Joint Director of Collegiate Education had passed an order directing the Deputy Commissioner\/Secretary of College of Arts & Culture to give re-employment to the appellant. But the respondent had not implemented the said order. On the other hand, it was contended by the Management that the appellant was facing disciplinary proceedings on the date of his superannuation. Hence, he was found not fit for re-employment. And he did not serve with the College after 31.03.2014 to claim salary. He was paid all his retirement benefits and duly received. The Disciplinary proceedings came to end on 20.06.2016. It was further stated that the right of re-employment is not automatic, though the proceedings of DCE state it as mandatory. <\/p>\n
Findings of the Court<\/b><\/p>\n
It was observed by the court that it is mandatory to re-employ a teaching faculty who retire in the middle of the Academic year till the end of the said academic year. It was observed by the court that the College Management refusal to engage the appellant citing disciplinary proceedings was bad in law. Further, during the period there are evidence to show that the appellant was engaged by the University for examination work. The appellant was ordered to be re-employed up to May 31st, 2014 in the proceedings of the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai, dated 16.04.2014. Therefore, the single Judge should not have dismissed the appellant’s writ seeking salary for the period, he worked.<\/p>\n
It was further observed by the court that the contention of the appellant was not sustainable as there was no record to show that the Management re-employed the appellant after he attained superannuation. The records relied by the appellant were self-serving documents or letter from the University which had sought his assistance as Examiner. It was observed by the court that on the date of superannuation, the appellant was facing disciplinary proceedings.<\/p>\n
It was held by the court that being cleared of the charges after retirement will not guarantee any financial benefits or re-employment that was not previously granted. Hence, ‘no work no pay’ principle was applied by the court.<\/p>\n
With the aforesaid observations, the writ appeal was dismissed by the court.<\/p>\n
Case Name : Dr. R. Mathivanan v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors<\/b><\/p>\n
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 140<\/b><\/p>\n
Case No. : W.A.(MD)No.1609 of 2018<\/b><\/p>\n
Counsel for the Appellant : E. V. N. Siva<\/b><\/p>\n
Counsel for the Respondents : D.Gandhiraj, K.Govindarajan<\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice R. Poornima held…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":29589,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3092],"tags":[51,17723,897,17724,17722,17721,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-29588","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-jobs","8":"tag-business","9":"tag-disciplinary-proceedings","10":"tag-jobs","11":"tag-madras-hc","12":"tag-mandatory","13":"tag-re-employment","14":"tag-uk","15":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114357672892734055","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29588","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29588"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29588\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/29589"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29588"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29588"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29588"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}