The Madras High Court recently ruled that although re-employment of faculty members retiring in the middle of an academic year is a mandatory process, the existence of pending disciplinary proceedings and the application of the 'no work, no pay' principle can override this entitlement. The Division Bench, comprising Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice R. Poornima, delivered this judgment while dismissing a writ appeal filed by Dr. R. Mathivanan.
The case involved Dr. R. Mathivanan, who had served as the Head of the Zoology Department at Arulmigu Palanianadavar College of Arts and Science in Palani. He reached the age of superannuation on March 31, 2014. Prior to his retirement, the appellant had submitted a representation on February 6, 2014, seeking re-employment until the end of the academic year, as per the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education (DCE) dated June 6, 2012.
However, the college management denied his request for re-employment on the grounds that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. The appellant was issued a show cause notice on March 24, 2014, inviting an explanation regarding the ongoing inquiry. In response, he submitted his explanation on March 11, 2014, highlighting that the DCE’s directions made re-employment mandatory for teachers retiring mid-academic year.
Despite his explanation, the college rejected his request due to the pending disciplinary case. The appellant challenged the charge memo separately, claiming the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules did not apply to him as he was employed in a private aided college. This argument was dismissed by the court.
Subsequently, the appellant filed another writ petition seeking his salary for April and May 2014, contending that he had performed examination-related duties for Madurai Kamaraj University. He relied on letters from the University dated April 16, 2014, and May 20, 2014, which invited him to participate in Board meetings of examiners, along with documents like his leave letter and internal marks statements.
The management, however, opposed the petition, stating that the appellant was not formally re-employed and had not worked at the college after March 31, 2014. The management further argued that he had already received all his retirement benefits, and since the disciplinary proceedings only concluded in June 2016, there was no valid claim for salary. They emphasized that the right to re-employment is not automatic, even if DCE guidelines suggest otherwise.
When the matter was first heard by a Single Judge, the court dismissed the petition, observing that the request was only for two months' salary post-retirement, and by 2017 the issue had become infructuous.
Unhappy with the dismissal, the appellant challenged the decision before the Division Bench, arguing that:
The appellant also stressed that the university had engaged him for exam duties, and the Joint Director of Collegiate Education had passed an order on April 16, 2014, instructing the college to re-employ him until May 31, 2014.
However, the Division Bench found that the appellant's claim lacked evidence. The court underlined that there was no official record proving that the college had re-employed him after superannuation. The letters from the University inviting him for exam duties were considered self-serving and insufficient to establish a right to salary.
"The fact that on the date of his superannuation, the appellant was facing disciplinary proceedings is not in dispute. The subsequent exoneration of the charges post-retirement will not entitle him to monetary benefits or re-employment which was never granted."
The Bench applied the well-established ‘no work, no pay’ principle, emphasizing that without actual service, salary could not be claimed retroactively, even if the faculty was later cleared of all charges.
Case Name : Dr. R. Mathivanan v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors
Case No. : W.A.(MD)No.1609 of 2018
Counsel for the Appellant : E. V. N. Siva
Counsel for the Respondents : D.Gandhiraj, K.Govindaraja
