Suresh Chand Sharma vs The Director Of Education & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 6934 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(C) 2423/2014

                                                  Decided on: 18.12.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
SURESH CHAND SHARMA                                 ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. K.P. Gupta, Advocate

                         versus

THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS                    ..... Respondents

Through : Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate for R-1 to R-3/DOE with Mr. R.K. Gupta, DOE.

Ms. Pushti Gupta, Adv. for R-4 and R-5/School.

CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter

alia for issuance of directions to the respondents No.1 to 3 /Directorate

of Education (DOE) and the respondents No.4 & 5/School for releasing

his salaries for the period w.e.f. 1.7.2013 to 05.12.2013, alongwith

interest. Further, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondent No.2

to modify the re-employment order dated 06.12.2013, to make it

effective from 1.7.2013 instead of 06.12.2013.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working on

the post of Vice-Principal in the respondent No.4/School, which is a

Government aided School, till he had superannuated on 30.6.2013.

During the period of his employment, an order dated 27.1.2012 was

issued by the Lieutenant Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, whereunder

permission was granted for re-employment of all the retired Vice

Principals/Principals of Government and under the Directorate of

Education, for a period of one year, extendable for another one year,

based on the performance and subject to fitness and vigilance clearance,

or till they attain the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier.

3. In terms of the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted an

application to the respondents No.4 & 5/School on 5.2.2013, seeking

re-employment upon his superannuation in June, 2013. As per the

averments made in the petition, the petitioner's request alongwith the

relevant papers was forwarded by the respondents No.4 & 5/School to

the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE on 13.06.2013.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that for the next five months, his

file kept moving between the office of the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE

and the respondents No.4 & 5/School and finally, an order dated

06.12.2013 was passed by the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE

recommending his case for re-employment on the post of Principal in the

respondents No.4 & 5/School with immediate effect for the period of one

year, extendable for another year based on the performance and subject

to fitness and vigilance clearance, till he would attain the age of 62

years, whichever was earlier. Further, it was ordered that the petitioner

would get the financial benefits w.e.f. the date of assumption of work.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present

petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that based on the order dated

1.7.2013 issued by the respondents No.4 & 5/School, re-employing him

w.e.f. the said date, the petitioner had started discharging his duties as

a Principal of the School, but he has been denied his salary for the

period between 1.7.2013 to 05.12.2013 for no fault of his.

6. On the last date of hearing, a perusal of the counter affidavits filed

by the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE and the respondents No.4 & 5/School

revealed that both were incomplete in the narration of facts as they did

not furnish the relevant details with regard to the movement of the file

from the date the petitioner had submitted his application for re-

employment on superannuation to the respondents No.4 & 5/School on

5.2.2013, till 06.12.2013, when the order of the re-employment was

issued by the respondent No.1/DOE. Further, the relevant records were

also not produced by the respondents for the court's perusal.

Accordingly, the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE and the respondents No.4 &

5/School were directed to file separate affidavits giving a chronology of

the relevant list of dates and events for the Court to assess as to where

did the fault lie and accordingly apportion the amount payable to him for

the period in question. In compliance of the aforesaid order, affidavits

have been filed by the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE and the respondents

No.4 & 5/School.

7. On examining the aforesaid affidavits, the position that emerges is

that on 05.02.2013, the petitioner had submitted an application to the

respondents No.4 & 5/School seeking reemployment. On 1.5.2013, the

Managing Committee of the School had passed a resolution

recommending the petitioner's case for re-employment. On 13.06.2013,

the School had processed the petitioner's file and forwarded it to the

DOE. When the file was perused by the DOE, it had transpired that the

documents furnished by the School were incomplete and it was noted

that the Manager had signed the documents in the file without dating the

same and further, the date of issuance of the petitioner's retirement

order was not indicated in the file. Lastly, the medical certificate

submitted by the petitioner was dated 25.07.2013 and therefore his

medical fitness could not have been assessed prior thereto. As a result,

the file was returned by the DOE to the School on 12.07.2013, to make

good the deficiencies that were pointed out.

8. The said file was resubmitted by the respondents No.4 and

5/School to the DOE on 26.07.2013, but this time, the minutes of the

meeting of the Managing Committee of the School, recommending the

petitioner's case for re-employment were not placed in the file.

Resultantly, on 02.08.2013, the file had to be returned by the DOE to

the respondents No.4 and 5/School and it was re-submitted to the DOE

on 19.08.2013, alongwith a copy of the relevant minutes of the meeting

of the Managing Committee. Thereafter, respondents No.1 to 3/DOE

had retained the petitioner's file from 19.08.2013 till 05.10.2013, when

some further clarification was sought from the School. The School

authorities had re-submitted the petitioner's file after two days on

07.10.2013. As certain objections raised earlier had not been dealt with,

the respondents No.4 and 5/School had re-submitted the petitioner's file

after removing the said objections only on 06.11.2013. After that, the

file was retained by the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE for the period

between 06.11.2013 to 05.12.2013 and finally, the re-employment order

was issued in favour of the petitioner on 06.12.2013.

9. Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE states that the

Department has taken a decision to disburse arrears of pay and

allowances to the petitioner for the period w.e.f. 06.11.2013 to

05.12.2013, when his file for re-employment was complete in all

respects and was finally submitted by the School authorities. This leaves

the period between 19.08.2013 to 05.10.2013, when admittedly, the file

had remained pending at the end of the DOE, for which the School

cannot be blamed.

10. Coming to the period between 06.10.2013 to 05.11.2013, it

transpires that it is the respondents No.4 and 5/School that did not take

prompt action to process the petitioner's file and send it back to the DOE

for purposes of finalizing his re-employment. As a result, the School is

held liable to pay arrears of the petitioner's salary for the said period.

Further, there is no plausible explanation offered for the delay on the

part of the respondents No.4 and 5/School in forwarding the petitioner's

file for the period w.e.f. 01.07.2013 to 18.08.2013.

11. Having regard to the sequence of events as narrated above, it is

deemed appropriate to direct that the respondents No.4 & 5/School bear

the burden of the petitioner's salary for the period between 01.07.2013

to 18.08.2013 and the period between 06.10.2013 to 05.11.2013. As for

the period between 19.08.2013 to 05.10.2013, it is apparent from the

sequence of events narrated above that the delay for the said period is

attributable to the DOE. Accordingly, the DOE is held liable to pay the

salary of the petitioner for the aforesaid period.

12. Both, the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE and the respondents No.4 &

5/School shall take steps to release the salary of the petitioner on the

aforesaid lines, within a period of six weeks from today, along with

interest payable @ 9% per annum from the date the said amounts had

become due and payable, till realization. If the entire amounts are not

paid within the period of six weeks, then the interest payable shall

increase from 9% per annum to 12% per annum, till realization.

13. The writ petition is disposed of, while quantifying the litigation

expenses at `7,500/-, to be equally borne by the respondents No.1 to

3/DOE and the respondents No.4 and 5/School.

                                                     (HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 18, 2014                                       JUDGE
sk/rkb