Smt. Archana Bansal & Ors. vs Directorate Of Education And Anr.

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) No.6972/2014

%                                                   4th March, 2015

SMT. ARCHANA BANSAL & ORS.           ..... Petitioners
                 Through: Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Advocate.


                          versus

DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ANR.            ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Amiet Andlay, Advocate for
                           respondent No.1.
                           Mr. P.D. Gupta, Advocate with Mr.
                           Kamal Gupta, Advocate for
                           respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioners who are the legal heirs of late employee Sh. K.K.

Bansal, impugn the order passed by the employer-school dated 22.7.2014

under Rule 121 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Rules') with respect to disentitlement of balance 50% of

pay in the period of service of the employee from 1.4.2002 to 22.7.2003.

That the petitioners are entitled to be paid the other 50% amount and which
W.P.(C) No.6972/2014                                               Page 1 of 4
 has been earlier granted by the school under Rule 121 of the Rules is not in

dispute and what is in dispute is that whether legal heirs of the employee

could have got 100% of the pay for the period in which he did not work with

the school on account of termination of employment, and which termination

order is subsequently set aside.


2.           The impugned order gives the following reasons for declining

the relief to the extent of 50% of the salary and holding that the balance 50%

amount already deposited in this Court be withdrawn by the petitioners. The

relevant portions of the impugned order read as under:-


      "(1) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, by its orders dated
      28.3.2014 and 20.5.2014 had specifically limited/restricted the
      claim of the legal heirs of late Sh. K.K. Bansal to the arrears of
      salary payable to him for the period between 1.4.2002 and
      22.7.2003 only. Hence, no salary whatsoever is admissible to the
      legal heirs for any period prior, beyond or other than the aforesaid
      period.
      (2) That since the legal heirs of late Sh. K.K. Bansal deliberately,
      despite opportunity and requisition, failed to did not produce the
      income-tax returns of late Sh. K.K. Bansal for the years 2002-03
      and 2003-04 or nay other relevant statement of account/balance
      sheet for the period in question, they thus totally failed to
      substantiate that the late Sh. K.K. Bansal remained unemployed
      during the period between 1.4.2002 and 22.7.2003. No reasons
      whatsoever had been assigned by the legal heirs of late Sh. K.K.
      Bansal for not having produced the ITRs and relevant statement of
      account for the said period. The Managing Committee is of the
      form opinion that the said documents have been withheld by the
      legal heirs deliberately and with mala fide documents have been
W.P.(C) No.6972/2014                                               Page 2 of 4
       withheld by the legal heirs deliberately and with mala fide intent to
      hide the income of the late Sh. K.K. Bansal for the said period,
      during which he is said to have remained unemployed.
      (3) That in terms of the law of the land, the principle of 'No
      Work No Pay' is applicable to all the employees. Admittedly, Sh.
      K. K. Bansal did not work with the school for the period between
      1.4.2002 and 22.7.2003 and as such, is not entitled to any salary and
      allowances for the said period. Despite it, the Managing Committee
      resolved to pay 50% of the salary and allowances for the said period
      as well. Rule 121 of DSER, 1973 does not in any manner limit or
      circumscribe the power of the Managing Committee of a private
      unaided school to decide the arrears of salary and allowances
      payable to only the circumstances enumerated therein. The arrears
      of salary and allowances are required to be determined by the
      Managing Committee keeping in view the relevant and material
      facts such as whether the employee was working anywhere,
      whether the employee has been able to substantiate his claim of
      unemployment, whether the employee or his heirs have deliberately
      not produced material documents to support the claim of absolute
      unemployment and so on and so forth.
      xxx                xxxx                xxxx               xxxx
      NOW, THEREFORE, the above named legal heirs are hereby asked
      to withdraw the above stated amount of Rs.1,52,761/- (Rupees One
      Lac Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty One only) from the
      amount of Rs.2,92,425/- (Rupees Two Lac Ninety Two Thousand
      Four Hundred and Twenty Five only) already deposited with the
      Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide Manager's Drafted No.006818
      dated January 10, 2012 drawn on the HDFC Bank Limited, Club
      Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 in favour of the Registrar
      General, Delhi High Court."                (underlining added)
3.          I find no infirmity in the impugned order because not only the

petitioners are guilty of concealment of the record which was necessary to

know that whether the employee had worked elsewhere in the relevant


W.P.(C) No.6972/2014                                               Page 3 of 4
 period and had earned income, but also because an employee whose services

are reinstated is not automatically entitled to 100% of the entire monetary

emoluments. Also, it requires to be noted that it always takes some amount

of expenditure to earn the total monetary emoluments by an employee and

thus 100% back wages need not be granted, and which aspect is in addition

to the fact that once an employee has not served the employer it is not that

automatically 100% of the wages and all consequent monetary emoluments

are payable. As already noted above, 50% of the amounts for the relevant

period have already been paid to the petitioners.


4.           Dismissed.




MARCH 04, 2015                                  VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne W.P.(C) No.6972/2014 Page 4 of 4