S.Christilda Shageela Rani v. Sugapriya And 2 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15.09.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Cont.P.No.1694 of 2023 S.Christilda Shageela Rani,

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. Mrs.Sugapriya, The District Educational Officer, Cuddalore District.

2. Mrs.Ananthi, The Block Education Officer II, Cuddalore.

3. Mr.Rabeet, The Correspondent, Danish Mission Elementary School, Vilvarayanatham, Cuddalore.

... Respondents Contempt Petition filed under section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents for the willful disobedience of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court made in W.M.P.No.3890 of 2023 in W.P.No.3821 of 2023 dated 09.02.2023.

1/4

For Petitioner :

Ms.T.Dharani For Respondents :

Mr.P.Sathish, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This Contempt petition has been filed to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.M.P.No.3890 of 2023 in W.P.No.3821 of 2023 dated 09.02.2023.

2. Pursuant to the earlier order passed on 08.09.2023, this matter has been posted for hearing today. Affidavit has been filed by the first and second respondents and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: " 5. I state that the even prior to filing of the writ petition, the 3rd Respondent had filed Statement of Claim for Teaching Grant for the Month of January-2023. I state that as per the said statement, the 3rd Respondent had sought grant only for one teacher viz. C.Johnson Thomas. I state that the Petitioner's name was never in the approved list. It is further relevant to state that till date third respondent school was paid the school fee grant only for one teacher and the Petitioner's name was never in the approved list of teachers.

2/4

6. I state that this Respondent had never included the name of the Petitioner in the approved list of teachers to pay her salary. Hence, the order of status quo passed by this Hon'ble Court was not violated as per the official records and there is no disobedience of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court."

3. The interim order passed by this court is only to safeguard the right of the petitioner to continue working in the 3rd respondent school without being terminated. However, the payment of salary can be done only after the appointment of the petitioner is approved, in view of the fact that the 3rd respondent school is an aided school. The interim order did not pertain to the payment of salary to the petitioner and it confined itself only to the continuation of the petitioner to work in the 3rd respondent school. Unless the appointment of the petitioner is approved, the first and second respondents cannot be directed to pay the salary.

4. In view of the above, this contempt petition is closed. 15.09.2023 Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order nl/gvn 3/4

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

nl/gvn Cont.P.No.1694 of 2023 15.09.2023 4/4