Delhi High Court
Management Committee Of Shiksha ... vs Director Of Education & Anr. on 24 November, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 24th November, 2011
+ LPA 586/2011
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF SHIKSHA
BHARTI SENIOR SECONDARY PUBLIC SCHOOL ...Appellant
Through: Mr.A.K.Singla, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Samir Jha and Mr.J.K.Sharma,
Advocate
versus
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ANR. ...Respondents
Through: Mr.Shashi Mohan, Advocate for
Mr.Sachin Chopra, Advocate for R-1.
Mr.Shekhar Kumar, Advocate for R-2.
LPA 660/2011
DEEPSHIKHA SAXENA ...Appellant
Through: Mr.Shekhar Kumar, Advocate.
versus
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF SHIKSHA BHARTI
SENIOR SECONDARY PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR.
...Respondents
Through: Mr.A.K.Singla, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Samir Jha and Mr.J.K.Sharma,
Advocate for R-1
Mr.Shashi Mohan, Advocate for
Mr.Sachin Chopra, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
LPA 586/2011 & 660/2011 Page 1 of 7
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. The chequered history of the past litigation
between the parties commencing from WP(C) No.5264/1998
and the various other writ petitions filed by the parties
ultimately culminating in the order dated 31st March 2009
passed by the Delhi School Tribunal allowing the appeal filed
by Deepshikha Saxena, the respondent No.2 in LPA
No.586/2011, and „The Managing Committee of Shiksha Bharti
Senior Secondary School‟ the appellant of LPA No.660/2011
has been noted in detail by the learned Single Judge in paras 1
to 12 of the impugned order dated 27th April 2011 and we do
not note the same for the reason the grievance raised before
us by the Management Committee of Shiksha Bharti Senior
Secondary Public School is to the direction that 50% back-
wages be paid to Deepshikha Saxena from 20th May 1998 till
31st March 2009 and in addition `40,000/- be paid to her as
compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The grievance of
Deepshikha Saxena is, and we note the prayer clause in the
appeal filed by her:-
"(a) Call for the records of WP(C) No.11898/2009
and modify the impugned judgment and order dated
27/04/2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge in
WP(C) No.11898/2009, enhancing the quantum of
compensation granted in lieu of reinstatement as
well as the rate of interest upon the back wages
granted to the appellant herein, and/or
(b) pass such other further order/orders as this
Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case."
2. Deepshikha Saxena joined Shiksha Bharti Senior
Secondary Public School as an unconfirmed Primary Teacher
on 30.6.1996 and was confirmed on 10.7.1997. A dispute
arose when the Management of the school alleged that she
submitted a resignation on 4.3.1998 which was accepted and
she handed over charge to the Principal of the School on
2.5.1998 and Deepshikha Saxena denied the same alleging
that either a blank paper signed by her was used to contrive
the alleged letter of resignation dated 4.3.1998 or that her
signatures thereon were forged.
3. Litigating in this Court by and under a writ petition
and thereafter under Letter Patent Appeal, the issue of
Deepshikha Saxena‟s resignation reached the lap of the
Tribunal constituted under the Delhi School Education Act
where the finding returned, vide order dated 31.3.2009, was
that Deepshikha Saxena had not resigned. It was directed by
the Tribunal that Deepshikha Saxena would be reinstated in
service and would be paid 50% back-wages commencing from
02.05.1998 till she was reinstated in service.
4. The Management of the School i.e. the appellant of
LPA No.586/2011, challenged the decision of the Tribunal by
and under WP(C) No.11898/2009.
5. Relevant would it be to note that before the
Tribunal, the Management of the School had filed documents
to show, that if not earlier at least in the year 2002,
Deepshikha Saxena had found gainful employment in Kamal
Model Senior Secondary School and this fact was not
controverted by Deepshikha Saxena. We need to highlight
that in the school magazine of Kamal Model Senior Secondary
School pertaining to the year 2002 a poem penned by
Deepshikha Saxena as teacher of the school has been
published and in another magazine published in the year 2009,
for the academic year 2007-2008, a group photograph of the
class of which she was the class teacher has been published
which shows Deepshikha Saxena sitting in the midst of the
students.
6. In response to the writ petition filed by the
appellant of LPA No.586/2011, where a categorical ground was
urged that there was no question of directing reinstatement or
granting back-wages inasmuch as Deepshikha Saxena was
gainfully employed, if not earlier at least since the year 2002,
Deepshikha Saxena skirted the issue by pleading in paragraph
7 of the counter affidavit filed by her by pleading:- Even if it is
assumed the deponent was working, the right of reinstatement
cannot be denied.
7. It is apparent that since, in the magazine of Kamal
Model Senior Secondary School, published in the year 2002,
Deepshikha Saxena had penned a poem listing herself as a
teacher in the school, there is evidence that Deepshikha
Saxena had found gainful employment, if not earlier,
somewhere in the year 2002. The date and the month was a
matter of fact in her special knowledge and Deepshikha
Saxena has to suffer the consequence of not disclosing
truthfully.
8. We note that Deepshikha Saxena has not
challenged the impugned decision to the extent the learned
Single Judge has modified the direction issued by the Tribunal
and in lieu of reinstatement has compensated her `40,000/-.
In the appeal filed by her, as noted herein above, Deepshikha
Saxena‟s grievance pertains to the quantum of compensation
awarded to her.
9. Learned counsel for Deepshikha Saxena seeks to
urge that the school in which Deepshikha Saxena found gainful
employment in the year 2002 is not a recognized school and
was not paying her full salary.
10. Now, the magazine of the school would reveal that
Kamal Model Senior Secondary School, where Deepshikha
Saxena found gainful employment, was a school where
teaching was imparted up to class-XII. It is difficult to believe
that the said school which was up to the Senior Secondary
level was running without a recognition. That apart, if this is
the fact, why did Deepshikha Saxena try to hide her gainful
employment? She could have truthfully stated that Kamal
Model Senior Secondary School, where she was employed,
being an unrecognized school was not paying salary as per
scales directed by the Director of Education under the
provisions of the Delhi School Education Act. This argument is
simply noted by us for sake of record, but since Deepshikha
Saxena never so pleaded either before the Tribunal or the
learned Single Judge, being a question of fact, we do not
permit Deepshikha Saxena to predicate said stand for the first
time in appeal.
11. The position therefore would be that even if we
maintain the finding of fact returned by the Tribunal that the
resignation letter dated 4.3.1998 was contrived, we would
have to note that somewhere in the year 2002 Deepshikha
Saxena found gainful employment and keeping in view the
chequered history of the battles fought between the two rival
groups, we would agree with the finding returned by the
learned Single Judge that under the circumstances Deepshikha
Saxena should not be reinstated and in lieu some
compensation should be paid to her.
12. Now, if Deepshikha Saxena was gainfully employed
we see no scope to direct even 50% back-wages to be paid for
the period she was gainfully employed.
13. Since the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal; of
Deepshikha Saxena‟s resignation being contrived, we are of
the opinion that not in lieu of reinstatement, but for
harassment caused to her evidenced by the fact that she
fought two litigations before a learned Single Judge in the
earlier writ petitions filed i.e. WP(C) No.1505/1998 and WP(C)
No.5264/1998 and two litigations before the Division Bench
when LPA No.604/2003 and LPA No.870/2004 were litigated;
and finally she had to litigate before the Tribunal constituted
under the Delhi School Education Act and the only evidence is
of her being gainfully employed in the year 2002; thus on the
assumption she joined Kamal Model Senior Secondary School
when the academic session commenced on 1st April 2002,
which date we assume because Deepshikha Saxena, the
person who knows the actual date when she joined said school
has not disclosed the same, she should be compensated for
loss of wages from 2.5.1998 till 31.3.2002 i.e. 3 years and 10
months, and for contriving a resignation by her.
14. We dispose of both appeals modifying the direction
issued by the learned Single Judge as per impugned order
dated 27.4.2011 directing that the Managing Committee of
Shiksha Bharti Senior Secondary Public School shall, within a
period of 30 days from today, pay `4,00,000/- (Rupees Four
Lakhs only) to Deepshikha Saxena and if not paid within 30
days we direct that said sum would bear interest @10% per
annum till the amount is paid.
15. On the sum of `4,00,000/- directed by us to be paid,
we may highlight that the sum has been broadly arrived at
keeping in view salary paid to primary school Teachers
between the years 1998 till the year 2001 and also the
harassment caused to Deepshikha Saxena who had to
repeatedly litigate.
16. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
S.P.GARG, J.
NOVEMBER 24, 2011
dk
