Deepti Abrol vs The Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 7028 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+        W.P.(C) 9183/2014 and CM APPL. 20882/2014



                                                Decided on: 22.12.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
DEEPTI ABROL                                            ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. Puneet Goel, Advocate

                       versus


THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS                  ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate for R-1 to R-3/DOE with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Legal Assistant, Zone-1.

CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was

working on the post of TGT with the respondents No.5 and 6/School

from 18.04.1994 till 31.03.2008, praying inter alia that the respondents

No.5 and 6/School be called upon to revise her pay scale and release the

arrears of pay to her in terms of the Sixth Pay Commission till the date

her resignation was accepted, alongwith interest and further, to pay her

gratuity, travel allowance and bonus etc. from the date of her

employment, till 25.03.2008.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that while releasing the

terminal dues to the petitioner, the respondents No.5 and 6/School had

miscalculated the Provident Fund and the pension payable to her, which

fact was duly pointed out to the School but no remedial steps were taken

by it. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated

03.06.2008 to the respondents No.5 and 6/School for release of the

gratuity dues, but no action was taken by the School.

3. It is stated that in all these years, the petitioner had repeatedly

been visiting the office of the respondents No.5 and 6/School for release

of her dues and finally, she had submitted a representation dated

06.02.2013 to the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE, followed by a reminder

dated 15.03.2014, requesting the Department to initiate action against

the School for non-compliance of Section 10 of the Delhi School

Education Act and Rules, 1973 (in short 'DSEAR').

4. Ms. Raman, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE,

who appears on advance copy, states that the petitioner cannot seek

recovery of dues that were allegedly payable to her since the year 1994,

when she had admittedly not taken any legal steps in all these years, for

recovery of the said amounts from the respondents No.5 and 6/School,

in accordance with law.

5. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner states that insofar

as the dues towards travel allowance, bonus etc. are concerned, the

petitioner may be permitted to confine the monetary relief to the past

three years reckoned from the date of filing of the present petition.

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

Department had taken action on receiving representations from the

petitioners and in support of the said submission, she draws the

attention of the Court to the notice to show cause dated 02.01.2014

issued to the Manager of the respondents No.5 and 6/School, calling

upon the School to implement the provisions of Section 10(1) of the

DSEAR in respect of one Mr. Praveen Arya, appointed on the post of UDC

in the School and the other employees of the School.

7. It is pertinent to note that it is virtually the end of year 2014 by

now, but learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE is not in a

position to demonstrate that the DOE had taken any concrete measures

against the respondents No.5 and 6/School for non-compliance of the

notice dated 02.01.2014. This Court is of the opinion that the

respondents No.1 to 3/DOE ought to have taken the notice to show

cause dated 02.01.2014, to its logical conclusion, more so when an

order dated 10.07.2014 was passed by the Public Grievances

Commission on the petitioner's complaint, wherein the DOE was

requested to conduct indepth inquiry into the alleged irregularities

committed by the respondents No.5 and 6/School and if the allegations

were found to be correct, take exemplary action against the school, in

accordance with the DSEAR.

8. Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE assures the Court that

that the Directorate shall take immediate effective measures to ensure

that the respondents No.5 and 6/School falls in line and makes

necessary compliances as mandated under Section 10 of the DSEAR,

within a fixed timeline. She further states that the Court may fix a date

for the petitioner to appear before the DOE and/or her nominee and in

the meantime, directions shall be issued by the DOE to the respondent

No.5 and 6/School for being represented on the said date and time,

alongwith a reply and the relevant documents so that appropriate orders

can be passed thereafter.

9. In view of the aforesaid submission, the present petition is

disposed of with directions issued to the petitioner to prepare a

computation of the amounts allegedly due and payable to her by the

respondents No.5 and 6/School for the duration of her service rendered

in the School under the heads of arrears of Sixth Pay Commission and

gratuity. The claims on account of travel allowance and bonus shall be

confined by the petitioner for the last three years, reckoned from today.

A copy of the computation shall be furnished by the petitioner to the

School within two weeks with a copy forwarded to the respondents No.1

to 3/DOE for perusal.

10. Thereafter, the DOE shall call upon the respondents No.5 and

6/School to submit its response to the aforesaid computation within two

weeks therefrom with a copy furnished to the petitioner. A date of

hearing shall be fixed by the DOE and/or her nominee within four weeks

thereafter, when the petitioner and the representative of the School shall

be present so that a decision can be taken on the dues claimed by the

petitioner to be outstanding.

11. In case the DOE is satisfied that some amounts are due and

payable by the respondents No.5 and 6/School to the petitioner, then

the same shall be quantified and a timeline shall be fixed for the School

to pay the said amounts. If the School absents itself from the hearing,

then the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE shall proceed to pass appropriate

orders in accordance with law under written intimation to both sides.

Respondents No.1 to 3/DOE shall ensure compliance of its orders as per

law.

12. Needless to state that if the petitioner or the respondents No.5 and

6/School are aggrieved by the decision that may be taken by the DOE

and/or her nominee, they shall be entitled to seek their remedies in

accordance with law.

13. As the present petition is being disposed of at the stage of

admission and the respondents No.5 and 6/School are not represented,

it is deemed appropriate to direct the petitioner to serve a copy of this

order on the respondents No.5 and 6/School for information and

compliance.

DASTI to the counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE.

                                                   (HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 22, 2014                                     JUDGE
rkb