IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 22..02..2008 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRA and The Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRU W.P. No. 33017 of 2003 and WPMP.No.39960 of 2003 T. Ayyappan Pillai .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Chief Eductional Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, High Court, Madras 104. .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai 104 in O.A.No.3624/2003 dated 6.11.2003 conforming the order passed by the first respondent in O.Mu.No.9537/A2/03 dated 22.10.2003 and quash the said orders and direct the first respondent to re-employ the petitioner till the end of the academic year, that is, till 31.5.2004 and grant him all consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.P. Manojkumar for M/s. P. Rajendran For Respondent-1 : Mr.S. Rajasekar, AGP ORDER (Order of the Court was made by K.CHANDRU, J.) Heard the arguments of Mr. P. Manojkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned Addl. Government Pleader representing the first respondent and have perused the records. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner is a Secondary Grade Teacher working in the Government Higher Secondary School, Thuckalay and he reached the age of superannuation on 31.10.2003. As per the orders of the Government in existence, a teacher who reaches the age of superannuation during the middle of the academic year, is entitled to be continued on re-employment basis till the end of that academic year, viz., 31st May of the next year. In the present case, the petitioner, as per the order of the Government, was eligible to continue on re-employment basis from 01.11.2003 to 31.5.2004. When he sought for such extension of service, he was denied for the same, which, as per the Government Orders, can be only on two grounds, viz., (a) that he was medically unfit and (b) that his conduct and character are not satisfactory. In the present case, when the petitioner made an application, which was forwarded by the Headmaster of the School to the Chief Educational officer, Nagercoil, he refused to grant re-employment to the petitioner stating that he had participated in the strike indulged by the Government servant throughout the State during July 2003 and, therefore, his services are not required on re-employment basis. Aggrieved at the same, the petitioner by O.A. No. 3624 of 2003. 3. The Tribunal, by an order dated 06.11.2003, rejected his request and accepted the stand of the Government stating that the applicant was a participant in the strike and, therefore, he was dismissed from service and thereafter, he was restored to service and was also allowed to retire. 4. It is not the case of a single individual participating in a strike but it is a case of 2000 Government servants including the School Teachers, who were on strike and many of them were restored by the orders of the Supreme Court under T.K. Rangarajan's case. Subsequently, it is stated that all those persons were taken in service and got their service continuity and salary was also paid by the State. 5. In the present case, the question that arises is whether the conduct of the petitioner in having participated in the strike would amount to disqualification in getting the benefit of re- employment. In fact, the case of the petitioner was that he was on Medical Leave from 01.7.2003 to 11.7.2003 and the strike had commenced on 02.7.2003 and he was also referred to Medical Board and the Medical College Hospital, Nagercoil had also certified about his illness. Even otherwise, the persons who were on Medical Leave were also dismissed by the Ordinance passed by the State. 6. In the present case, the impugned order passed by the Chief Educational Officer dated 22.10.2003 does not even state that he had suffered from any disqualification in terms of the Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Order providing for re-employment. Under these circumstances, we do not find that the order passed by the Tribunal is proper and in accordance with the Government Order in this regard. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition will stand allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Since the petitioner had already retired from service from 31.10.2003 and was denied the benefit of re-employment from 01.11.2003 to 31.5.2004, the respondents are directed to pay the salary to the petitioner for the said period and this exercise shall be undertaken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. gri To The Chief Eductional Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 1 cc to Mr.P. Rahandra, Advocate, SR. 9860 W.P. No. 33017 of 2003 NTK (CO) kk 17/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/