Delhi High Court
Cambridge Primary School vs The Directorate Of Education And ... on 24 July, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.4643 /2013
% 24th July, 2013
CAMBRIDGE PRIMARY SCHOOL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anirudh Wadhwa, Advocate.
versus
THE DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-school impugning
the letter dated 10.1.2007 which reads as under:-
"No. EO/Zone-25/2006-2007/2139 Dated:-10/1/2007
To
The Headmistress,
Cambridge Primary School,
New Friends Colony, New Delhi-65
Sub: Regarding retirement settlement of Mrs. Yukti Banerjee.
Madam,
Reference above cited subject I am to convey the observations of
JAO (South) that pay has to be fixed at `5850/- giving her the benefit
of bunching by adding two increments to the minimum of the new
scale as she has drawn six or more increments in the pre-revised scale
of pay. Copy of the proforma for pay fixation submitted by the school
after correction is enclosed for your reference.
Yours faithfully,
(Kusum Lata Sharma)
Education Officer
Zone-25
Copy for information to:-
Mrs. Yukti Banerjee, M-53, G.K.-II, Ground Floor, Residential,
New Delhi.
(Kusum Lata Sharma)
Education Officer
Zone-25"
2. The obduracy of the school went to the extent that they refused
to comply with the aforesaid order dated 10.1.2007 and therefore the
concerned teacher, namely, Ms. Yukti Banerjee was forced to file a writ
petition being W.P.(C) No.5462/2010 for implementation of the said order
dated 10.1.2007. The writ petition ultimately allowed by an order dated
16.1.2013 and only thereafter the petitioner-school has paid the amount due.
3. Today, counsel for the petitioner urges that the petitioner has
been all along contesting the claim of Ms. Yukti Banerjee and therefore this
writ petition should be entertained. It is also argued that the petitioner
should get benefit equivalent to the provision of Section 14 of the Limitation
Act, 1963.
4. In my opinion, the obduracy and obstinacy of a person in
refusing to pay dues under a final order of Direction of Education by
contesting proceedings cannot mean that the said person will have a right
after losing in an earlier writ petition filed by the teacher, to file a fresh writ
petition for setting aside the impugned order which was passed way back in
January, 2007 i.e six years and six months earlier. No doubt, there are
observations in the order dated 16.1.2013 to enable the petitioner to file a
fresh petition however that liberty was in accordance with law. Since the
law does not permit entertaining of stale challenge and cases are not
entertained which are barred by delay and laches, I am not inclined to
interfere in this writ petition as the writ petition is barred clearly by delay
and laches. No doubt, Limitation Act does not apply to the writ petitions,
however that does not mean that the ordinary period of limitation has to be
overlooked. Ordinary period of limitation is overlooked only in extenuating
circumstances or where a representation is filed by a concerned person and
which representation is pending without rejecting the same. I do not find
any ground in this case to entertain a writ petition which is filed six years
and six months after cause of action arose. No explanation, much less which
is legally acceptable, has been furnished for delay in filing of this writ
petition, and as already stated above contesting of writ proceedings by a
petitioner as a respondent is not a ground to extend the period for filing of
the writ petition in the year 2013 against an order passed in January, 2007.
5. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to
bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
JULY 24, 2013
Ne
