Delhi High Court
Durga Banerjee vs President/Manager, Nabarun ... on 4 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999 IAD Delhi 846, 77 (1999) DLT 415, 1999 (48) DRJ 428, 1999 (82) FLR 599
Author: K Ramamoorthy
Bench: K Ramamoorthy
ORDER
K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The petitioner, who was working in the first respondent school, was suffering from breast cancer and she was on medical leave from 20.1.1995 to 10.4.1995. After recovering from the illness partially, she requested the school to permit her to join duty. According to the petitioner, she offered to work in the school from the 11th of April, 1995. But the case of the school is that she did not produce proper medical certificates from the medical officer, and on production of valid medical certificate, she was permitted to join duty on the 11th of April, 1996. Since then, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been working in the first respondent school.
2. According to the petitioner, she had not been paid salary from 11.4.1995 to 10.4.1996 for a period nearly 12 months. The first respondent school is an aided school under the control of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioner had been making representations to the MCD and also the school. Her request was not complied with. Therefore, she had approached this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
3. It is not necessary to go into the factual aspects of the matter. The petitioner is now working in the school and she is being paid regularly the salary that she is entitled to. The question that is raised by the writ petitioner is whether the respondents were obliged to pay salary to her for the period from 11.4.1995 to 10.4.1996 and also the bonus claimed by the writ petitioner. The petitioner is working as peon in the school.
4. The MCD being a public authority, who is granting aid to the first respondent school, ought have considered the matter and representations made by the petitioner and issued appropriate orders to the first respondent school. In the counteraffidavit filed by the respondents 1 & 2, various allegations have been made against the petitioner in answer to the claim of the petitioner for salary and bonus. Those averments cannot be gone into in the writ petition. If the school had any grievance with regard to the any of matter, mentioned in the counter, the school could have taken appropriate action against the petitioner. No action was taken against the petitioner. Those things cannot be an answer to the petitioner's claim. The first respondent school also does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was granted medical leave up to the 10th of April, 1995.
5. In my view, the petitioner has made out a case for the claim of salary for the period from 11.4.1995 to 10.4.1996. The petitioner would also entitled to bonus as per the rules in force at the relevant time. The learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 submitted that the first respondent school is an aided school and proper directions could be issued to the MCD in this behalf. As I noticed above, the MCD had failed in its obligation in not considering the claim of the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I direct the MCD to pay salary and bonus for the period from 11.4.1995 to 10.4.1996 to the petitioner. The MCD shall be at liberty to make appropriate adjustments and recover the same from the first respondent school. The MCD shall make the payment on or before the 31st of March, 1999.
7. The writ petition stands allowed.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
