Shri Chander Prakash Jain vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Others
2001 Latest Caselaw 474 Del

ORDER

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to grant to him extension of service from 1.1.2001 to 31.12.2001 in view of the fact that he is a State Awardee, and with all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner was appointed as the Principal in respondent No.3 school under appointment letter dated 28.2.1978. He continued to work in the aforesaid capacity in the said school. In 1987, the petitioner was given a State Award by respondent No.1 which is not disputed. The respondents took a policy decision to extend the services of Principal, Vice Principal and Teachers who are the National and State Awardees. The said policy was however, discontinued under Memorandum dated 12.3.1996. However, a circular was issued on 11.4.1997 which is in supersession of the earlier circular dated 12.31996 and in the said circular it was clarified that all State Awardees/National Awardees (teachers, Vice Principals, Principals) would continue to be entitled to extension in service if he/she has received the award prior to the year 1990. A copy of the said circular is placed on record. It is further stated in the said circular that the extension in service would be for a period of 2 years for a State Awardee and on year to year basis and subject to medical fitness and vigilance clearance. The petitioner being a State Awardee, submitted an application for grant of extension of his services in terms of the aforesaid circular. Since the aforesaid application was to be submitted in an appropriate proforma the petitioner applied for grant of extension of service on the prescribed proforma in the month of May, 1999. Since the respondent did not take any action on the said application seeking for extension and since the petitioner was retiring from service on 31.12.1999 he filed the present writ petition in this court.

Initially no interim order was passed by this court and therefore, the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.1999. However, on 25.5.2000 an interim order was passed by this court issuing the interim direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to resume the duties and allow him to work during the pendency of the writ petition. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner was allowed to join the school on 29.5.2000. as the Principal and since then the petitioner is working in the said school as Principal by virtue of the aforesaid interim order passed by this court.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that by virtue of the fact that he is a State Awardee he was entitled to be given the extension for 2 years in terms of his application submitted in the prescribed proforma and therefore, a declaration to the aforesaid effect is required to be given by this court. He also drew my attention to his application seeking for extension of his service and relying on the contents thereof submitted that in the said application he had sought extension for two years i.e. from 29.12.1999 to 28.12.2001 stating clearly therein that he is a State Awardee and he received the award in the year 1987.

4. Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that the circular on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming the aforesaid relief would itself clearly prove and establish that the said extension has to be on year to year basis and subject to vigilance clearance. It was submitted that for the second year no application was submitted by the petitioner and that financial irregularities have been committed by the petitioner as established from the records and therefore, the petitioner cannot get the benefit of the circular dated 11.4.1997. In support of her contention she drew my attention to the averments made in the additional affidavit filed by the respondents and also to the documents annexed thereto.

5. I have perused the documents placed on record and relied upon by the counsel appearing for the parties during the course of arguments. In terms of the circular dated 11.4.1997 a State Awardee is entitled to extension of service provided the said award was received prior to the year 1990. The extension of services is to be for a period of 2 years which is to be on year to year basis and subject to medical fitness and vigilance clearance. So far the first year is concerned, the petitioner did file an application in the prescribed proforma seeking extension of his services for two years. Although the extension is to be granted on year to year basis, even for the first year no decision was taken by the respondent and therefore, to state that for the second year the petitioner did not submit any application for extension would amount to putting the cart before the horse. The said contention of the counsel appearing for the respondent cannot be accepted. However, he extension of the services was also dependant on the fact that the Awardee is cleared from the vigilance angle also.

6. The documents placed on record, particularly the report of the Additional Director of Education (Administration) indicates that certain financial irregularities have been committed by the petitioner. It is indicated from the said report that in the month of September, 1999 a sum of Rs.30,000/- to 33,000/- was collected on account of examination fund and that the said money was kept by the petitioner. According to the Additional Director of Education the said act on the part of the petitioner amounted to temporary mis-appropriation. Of course in the report he has stated that the charges of embezzlement against the petitioner have not been substantiated either from records or by any documents. The Additional Director of Education has further stated in categorical terms that there were financial irregularities committed by the petitioner particularly in the maintenance of proper records. In view of the aforesaid position, it cannot be said that the petitioner has a clean vigilance record. Since the extension of service was also dependant on the vigilance clearance, no direction as sought for the petition could be given in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner however, has worked in the school pursuant to the interim order passed by this court and he has been paid his salary and allowances against the services rendered by him. The payments made to the petitioner so far shall not be recovered by the respondents. However, the petitioner shall stand superannuated with immediate effect.

7. In the result the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. There will be no order as to costs.