Gnct Of Delhi And Ors vs Shakuntala Verma
2012 Latest Caselaw 839 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 07.02.2012

+       W.P. (C) No. 2334/2011


GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS                                  ...   Petitioners

                                         versus

SHAKUNTALA VERMA                                         ... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners : Ms Urvashi Malhotra for Ms Avnish Ahlawat, Adv.

For the Respondent : Ms Nandita Rao

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 1796/2010.

2. The Tribunal had given the following directions:-

"In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the applicant has been deprived of her right to be reemployed from 01.04.2009 without any justification and basis. As such, we allow this OA with a direction to the respondents to treat the applicant as employed on

reemployment w.e.f. 1.4.2009 and pursuant upon the order passed by them now whereby the applicant has been treated to be reemployed w.e.f. 22.02.2010, the interregnum would be treated good for pay and allowances, which shall be disbursed to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."

3. The facts in brief are that the respondent was to retire on 31.03.2009 on attaining the age of sixty years. She was to be extended automatic re- employment for a further period of two years w.e.f. 01.04.2009 as per the policy declared in the notification dated 29.01.2007. In the meanwhile, the respondent had been promoted as Vice Principal on 31.12.2008, but, she was not allowed to perform the functions of Vice Principal. However, instead of the respondent being re-employed under the said policy, she was given pension etc relevant to a Vice Principal. Subsequently, when the respondent made a claim for her being re-employed under the said policy, she gave up her pension which was accorded to her as a Vice Principal. The differential amount had been adjusted as per order dated 10.2.2010 of the petitioner. We may point out at this stage that in an earlier round before the Tribunal in OA No. 815/2009 the Tribunal, in its order dated 27.07.2009, had noticed the fact that the respondent before her retirement had got financial benefits attached to the post of Vice Principal, though she continued to perform the duties of PGT, till she retired on 31.03.2009. The Tribunal specifically recorded that as such the promotion order remained on paper only and had not been given effect to in reality, as she was not allowed to join the higher post of Vice Principal, at the relevant time in the

concerned school. The said O.A No. 815/2009 was disposed of on 27.07.2009 with the following directions:-

"Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the applicant was not promoted before she retired on superannuation on 31.03.2009. As such her right to be considered for re-employment as PGT shall be open and respondents shall now consider it by passing a speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."

4. The respondent was then re-employed w.e.f. 10.02.2010. Since the respondent was not re-employed w.e.f. 01.04.2009, she filed O.A No. 1796/2010, which culminated in the impugned order dated 03.09.2010.

5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, we feel that the impugned order only requires some minor modifications. This is so because the respondent did not function as a teacher between 01.04.2009 and 27.07.2009 when the Tribunal had directed that the respondent be considered for re-employment, within one month. The direction of the Tribunal is that she treated to be re-employed w.e.f. 01.04.2009 and that the period between 01.04.2009 and 22.02.2010 (when she was actually re-employed) be treated as good for pay and allowances. The Tribunal also directed that the said pay and allowances be disbursed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the impugned order. The petitioners were directed, vide order dated 27.07.2009, to consider the respondent for re-employment within one month and had they complied with the order, in its true spirit, within the time stipulated in the said order, the respondent would have been re-employed on or before

27.08.2009. We, therefore, are of the view that she should get pay and allowance w.e.f. 27.08.2009. In any event, the petitioner has received pension for the period prior to 27.08.2009.

6. With this modification of the Tribunal's order, this writ petition stands disposed of. The pension amount, if any, paid for the period from 27.08.2009 to 09.02.2010 shall be adjusted against the pay and allowances of the respondent.

Dasti.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K. JAIN, J FEBRUARY 07,2011 Kb/bg