Delhi High Court
Shri Pramesh, S/O S. Lakhan Singh vs The Directorate Of Education, ... on 23 September, 2002
Author: V Jain
Bench: V Jain
JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. This writ petition involves a short question for
determination. Petitioner was working with respondent
No. 2 as Peon. It is the case of the petitioner that on
15.1.1994 petitioner was directed not to come to the
school and was coerced in writing a resignation letter.
Against such arbitrary and whimsical order, the
petitioner made a representation. Petitioner on
16.1.1994 itself intimated the Director of Education that
said resignation stood withdrawn as same was obtained
under coercion. However, the case of the respondent No. 2
is that resignation was submitted by the petitioner which
was accepted by the Managing Committee of respondent No. 2
and the resignation letter was voluntary. The stand of
respondent No. 2 seems not correct in view of the
representation made to the Director of Education by the
petitioner and the order passed by the Director of
Education on 20.1.1994 itself. At page 42 is the order
issued by the Deputy Education Officer which inter alia,
says that the resignation of the petitioner was obtained
forcibly and the school management did not allow the
petitioner to mark his attendance, therefore, a direction
was issued to the school management to take the
petitioner on duty and the resignation be treated as
withdrawn. Again a similar direction was issued on
25.1.1994 by the Director of Education and the following
paragraph is important for determination of issue with
regard to the payment of back wages from 15.1.1994 till
20.10.2000 on which date the petitioner re-joined the
duties as per the order of this Court:-
"Till further orders, Parmesh, Peon may
be treated to be on duty and no hindrance may
be put in his marking his attendance."
2. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has contended
that the Deputy Education Officer could not have passed
the order as the order was to be passed by the Director
of Education. Another contention raised by learned
counsel for respondent No. 2 is that pursuant to Rule
121 of Delhi Education School Rules, the power to grant
back wages would be under the domain of the Managing
Committee of the school and no direction can be issued
by the Director of Education.
3. I am afraid that none of the contention of the
learned counsel for respondent No. 2 holds good. Rule
121 applies to cases where an employee is dismissed,
removed or compulsorily retired from service and in
view of such removal, dismissal or compulsory
retirement, he is reinstated as a result of appeal.
Here is a case where all the three eventualities did
not occur. Petitioner was neither dismissed nor
removed compulsorily retired. The case made out by
respondent No. 2 was that he had resigned voluntarily
which the Director of Education found not to be correct
and directed at the earliest opportunity, the school
management to take the petitioner on duty. From 1994
till 2000, the petitioner was not taken on duty by
respondent No. 2.
4. I have been told by counsel for respondent No. 1
& 3 that for not implementing the direction given by
the Director of Education, the recognition of the
school was withdrawn as well as the grant given to the
school was also withheld. It is only after the
petitioner approached this Court and a direction was
issued by this Court for complying with the order
passed by the Director of Education dated 20.1.1994, the
petitioner was taken on duty on 20.10.2000. I do not
find any force in the arguments of counsel for
respondent No. 2 that no order was passed by Director of
Education. At page 54 of the paper-book there is a
letter dated 2.8.1995, the Deputy Director of Education
has asked the explanation of respondent No. 2 and the
same is to the following effect:
"As directed by the Director of
Education, Delhi the Manager, Khalsa Girls
Sr. Sec. School, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj,
New Delhi is hereby directed to explain
the reasons for non-compliance of the
instructions contained in the Deputy
Director of Education, Distt. Central's
Office letter No. F.DE-51(15)(13)E-I/94/629
dated 21.7.1994......"
5. Therefore, it cannot be said that no order was
passed by the Director of Education. Even otherwise
respondent No. 2, in spite of specific direction issued by
respondents 1 & 3, has not complied and taken the
petitioner on duty which he was mandated to do so and the
petitioner has to file this writ petition. Respondent
No. 2 is directed to pay to the petitioner all the arrears
of his salary and consequential benefits from 15.1.1994
till 20.10.2000 within a period of eight weeks.
6. Petition stands disposed of. Rule is made
absolute.
7. CMs. 2587/99 and 9187/2001 also stand disposed
of.
