Delhi High Court
Harjinder Kaur vs The School Management Of Guru ... on 22 April, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 170/2013& CM No. 361/2013
% 22nd April, 2013
HARJINDER KAUR ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Sherawat, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT OF GURU HARKISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL
HEMKUNT COLONY & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Advocate for R-1 &
R-2.
Mr. Amiet Andley, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. In this writ petition three reliefs are claimed. The first is the claim for
quashing of the suspension order dated 18.10.2011 and the second is the claim for
setting aside of the suspension order as the period of six months under Rule 115(2)
of the Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973, has expired and no fresh order
has been passed. The third is the claim of salary for the months of August to
November, 2009 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.
2. So far as the first prayer for quashing of the suspension order dated
18.10.2011 is concerned, I have had an occasion to consider this aspect in a bunch
WP(C) No. 170/2013 Page 1 of 3
of cases, lead cases being W.P.(C) No.8040/2011 titled as Tajinder Kaur Vs. Guru
Harkishan Public School and Ors. decided on 16.4.2013, and W.P.(C)
No.8412/2011 titled as Jatinder Kumar Saini Vs. School Management of
G.H.P.S., Fateh Nagar & Ors. decided on 10.4.2013 wherein I have held that no
prior or post facto approval of the Director of Education is required for suspension
of an employee in view of the Division Bench judgments of this Court in the cases
of Kathuria Public School vs. Director of Education, 123 (2005) DLT 89 and
Delhi Public School & Anr. Vs. Shalu Mahendroo & Ors.(2013) 196 DLT
147(DB).
3. Accordingly, the writ petition seeking quashing of the suspension
order on the ground that no prior permission was taken or post facto approval was
taken for passing of the suspension order dated 18.10.2011 is misconceived and
dismissed.
4. So far as the issue of suspension order having been passed on
18.10.2011 and not being continued thereafter is concerned, counsel for respondent
nos. 1 and 2 states that since there is no specific time limit provided under Rule
115(2) of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, the Managing
Committee of the school will now pass appropriate orders positively within a
period of four weeks from today. This statement is taken on record and respondent
Nos.1 and 2 are directed accordingly.
WP(C) No. 170/2013 Page 2 of 3
5. So far as the relief in the writ petition with respect to claim of salary is
concerned, counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 states that salary up to 18.10.2011
has already been paid to the petitioner and after the suspension order, the petitioner
is being paid suspension allowance in accordance with the rules. In case, the
petitioner has not been paid the salary from August to November, 2009 till date,
the said amount or any balance payable will now be paid to the petitioner within a
period of four weeks from today alongwith the interest at 12% per annum simple.
6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, subject however to the
aforesaid observations.
APRIL 22, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
