Delhi High Court
Sushil Kumar vs The Director Of Education & Ors on 18 December, 2014
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1582/2014
Decided on: 18.12.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
SUSHIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. K.P. Gupta, Advocate with
petitioner in person.
versus
THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Amiet Andley, Advocate
for R-1 to 3/DOE.
Ms. Pushti Gupta, Advocate for R-4 & 5.
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 28.11.2013, alongwith
interest. Further, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondent No.2
to modify the re-employment order dated 29.11.2013, to make it
effective from 1.7.2013 instead of 29.11.2013.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working on
the post of 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 schools and those that are under the
Directorate of Education for a period of one year, extendable for another
year based on the performance and subject to fitness and vigilance
clearance, or till they attain the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier.
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.
3. 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 7.6.2013 and the same
were received by the Education Officer on 13.6.2013.
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
29.11.2013 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, or 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
the Principal of the School, but he has been denied his salary for the
period between 1.7.2013 to 28.11.2013, 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 29.11.2013, when the order of re-employment was
issued by the respondent No.2/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 re-employment. On 1.5.2013, the
Managing Committee of the School had passed a resolution
recommending the petitioner's case for re-employment. On 7.6.2013,
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 of the petitioner
for re-employment without dating the same and the photocopy of the
resolution of the Managing Committee, recommending the petitioner's
case for re-employment, had not been attached with the file. As a
result, on 18.6.2013, the petitioner's file was returned to the School with
objections. However, the School did not take any action on the said file
from 18.6.2013 till 2.8.2013, when the objections raised by the DOE
were finally removed and the file was returned to the DOE.
8. Thereafter, the file kept moving within the Directorate of Education
between 3.8.2013 and 5.10.2013, when it was sent back to the School
with the observation that the recommendations of the Education Officer
of the Zone were not placed in the file and further, that some of the
documents had been signed by the petitioner after his superannuation.
On 7.10.2013, the School had removed these objections and returned
the file to the DOE only on 17.10.2013. After obtaining the necessary
clarifications from the School on 30.10.2013, the DOE finally issued the
re-employment order on 29.11.2013.
9. Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE submits that as all the
objections were finally removed by the School only on 7.10.2013, the
department has approved the case for payment of arrears of salary to
the petitioner on his re-employment w.e.f. 7.10.2013 to 28.11.2013.
This leaves the period between 1.7.2013 to 6.10.2013, when the school
had allowed the petitioner to resume duties as re-employed knowing
fully well that the respondent Nos.1 to 3/DOE, had yet to grant approval
to the recommendations forwarded by the Managing Committee of the
School.
10. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondents No.4 & 5/School
reveals that no explanation has been offered for the delay on the part of
the School in processing the case of the petitioner, when he had
submitted his application for re-employment as early as on 5.2.2013,
whereas he was to superannuate on 30.6.2013.
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 w.e.f. 1.7.2013 to
2.8.2013, when objections were removed and the file sent back to the
DOE for purposes of processing. As for the period between 3.8.2013 to
6.10.2013, it is apparent from the events narrated above that the delay
is attributable to the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE. Accordingly, for the
aforesaid period, the DOE is held liable to pay the salary of the petitioner
for the said period. Coming to the period between 7.10.2013 and
28.11.2013, when the file for re-employment was complete in all
respects, the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE has agreed to disburse the
salary for the 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
became due and payable, till realization. If the entire amounts are not
paid within the period of six weeks from today, the interest component
shall increase from 9% per annum to 12% per annum, till realization.
13. The writ petition is disposed of, while quantifying the litigation
expenses as `7,500/-, to be equally borne by the respondents No.1 to
3/DOE and the respondents No.4 & 5/School.
(HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 18, 2014 JUDGE
sk/mk
