R.S.A. No. 3520 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3520 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.2.2011 Meena ......Appellant Versus Summer Hill Convent School and another .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that she was appointed as a teacher in Summer Hill Convent School, Education Society, Bathinda. Plaintiff joined her services in April 1992. Employees Provident Fund was started to be deducted from the salary of the plaintiff after she had put in six months' services as a teacher. The work and conduct of the plaintiff was highly appreciated. However, on 22.9.2004 plaintiff was served with an order, whereby she was placed under suspension with immediate effect. Suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming subsistence allowance for the period she had remained under suspension. R.S.A. No. 3520 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Defendants, in their written statement, admitted the fact that the plaintiff had been appointed as a teacher in the defendants' school. It was averred that on 13.8.2004 at about 10 a.m. plaintiff had been called by the Principal in the office and she was advised not to indulge in any activities creating indiscipline. However, the plaintiff failed to improve her behaviour. On 21.9.2004 at about 11.15 a.m. plaintiff had created nuisance and had threatened and instigated the staff to not to teach the students. Hence, an inquiry was ordered to be held against the plaintiff. During inquiry the charges levelled against the plaintiff were found to be proved and the plaintiff was dismissed from service. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to subsistence allowance w.e.f. 22.9.2004 ? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is within limitation ? OPP. 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP. 4. Whether suit is not maintainable ? OPD. 5. Whether suit is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties ? OPD. 6. Whether plaintiff has got no cause of action to file suit ? OPD. 7. Whether plaintiff has already been dismissed, if so, to its effect ? OPD. 8. Whether defendants are entitled to compensatory costs, if so, to what amount ? OPD. 9. Whether this court has got no jurisdiction to R.S.A. No. 3520 of 2010 (O&M) 3 entertain and try the suit ? OPD. 10. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 2.12.2009, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 6.5.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to be paid the subsistence allowance during the period she had remained under suspension. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of “Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., 1999 (2) S.C.T. 660”, wherein it was held as under :- “25. Service Rules also usually provide for payment of salary at a reduced rate during the period of suspension. (See Fundamental Rule 53). this constitutes the “Subsistence Allowance”. If there is no provision in the rules applicable to a particular class of service for payment of salary at a reduced rate, the employer would be liable to pay full salary even during the period of suspension.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Defendant No.1 is a private school. The relationship between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was of employer and employee. There are no statutory rules governing the parties. In these circumstances, the only R.S.A. No. 3520 of 2010 (O&M) 4 remedy available to the plaintiff was to claim damages. The suit filed by the plaintiff claiming subsistence allowance was not maintainable. Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant fails to advance the case of the appellant as it is based on different facts. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 28, 2011 Anand