Delhi High Court
Navy Children School vs Director Of Education & Ors on 13 November, 2014
Author: Hima Kohli
24 to 30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
W.P.(C) 7413/2014 & CM No.17604/2014
W.P.(C) 7416/2014 & CM No.17607/2014
W.P.(C) 7426/2014 & CM No.17621/2014
W.P.(C) 7429/2014 & CM No.17625/2014
W.P.(C) 7430/2014 & CM No.17626/2014
W.P.(C) 7431/2014 & CM No.17627/2014
W.P.(C) 7437/2014 & CM No.17634/2014
Date of decision: 13.11.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
NAVY CHILDREN SCHOOL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Kaushik, Advocate for
Ms. Shilpa Singh, Advocate
versus
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate
for R-1 & 2 with Mr. Nagar, DEO, Zone-26.
Ms. Indrani Ghosh, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. Ms. Indrani Ghosh, learned counsel, who had appeared for the
respondents No.3 in the earlier round of litigation, states that she has
instructions to appear for the respondents No.3 in the present cases
as well. She submits that she shall file her power of attorney within
one week. A complete set of the paper book be furnished to the
learned counsel within two days.
2. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioner praying
inter alia for setting aside the order dated 22.8.2014 passed by the
respondent No.1/Director of Education. The facts of all the seven
cases are more or less similar. For the sake of convenience, the facts
of W.P.(C) 7413/2014 are being taken note of.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/School states that the
respondents No.3, who was teaching in the petitioner/School, had
superannuated on 31.5.2007; in September, 2008, the
recommendations made by the Sixth Pay Commission were published
making new pay scales applicable w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Thereafter, the
respondents No.3 had filed a representation to the School, claiming
arrears of salary, gratuity, leave encashment, etc. The said request
was declined by the petitioner/School in the year 2010. Aggrieved by
the said refusal, in March, 2011, the respondents No.3 herein had
filed a writ petition in this Court, registered as WP(C)No.2617/2011.
Other aggrieved teachers had also filed similar petitions.
4. After hearing the parties in the aforesaid writ petitions, a
common order was passed on 04.07.2013, observing inter alia that
various contentious issues were involved in the case and the factual
position was required to be examined. It was therefore deemed
appropriate to direct the petitioners in the connected petitions,
including the respondents No.3 herein, to make substantive
representations to the DOE, raising all the grievances against the
school, including those subject matter of the petitions filed by them.
It was further directed that the said representations would be
considered by the respondent No.4/DOE, who was called upon to fix a
date of hearing, on which both the parties would remain present.
While parting with the case, it was clarified that each of the
petitioners in the connected petition would make detailed
representations to the Director of Education within six weeks
specifying inter alia their entitlement, the extent of their entitlement
along with the outstanding amounts received/claimed by them. On
receipt of the said representations, the Director of Education was
directed to issue notices to the concerned schools, for giving their
written response to the representations and after granting a personal
hearing to the parties, pass a speaking order.
5. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner/School that
pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 4.7.2013, the School had
received a letter dated 7.9.2013 from the respondent No.2/Deputy
Director of Education, calling upon it to furnish the documents for
preparing the due amount in respect of the respondents No.3.
6. In reply to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner/School had asked
for the details of the representations made by the respondent No.3 in
terms of the order dated 4.7.2013. However, without furnishing
copies of the representations, the respondent No.2/Deputy Director of
Education had called upon the petitioner/School to produce the
relevant documents on 25.9.2013. The petitioner/School had then
submitted all the documents as directed and on 9.5.2014, the parties
had appeared before the respondent No.1/Director of Education. This
was followed by the impugned order dated 22.8.2014 passed by the
respondent No.1/ Director of Education, directing the
petitioner/School to pay the arrears of salary, gratuity, leave
encashment, etc., to the respondent No.3.
7. The sole contention of the counsel for the petitioner/School is
that once there was a specific direction issued by the Court in the
connected petitions on 4.7.2013, calling upon the Director of
Education to furnish a copy of the representation given by the
respondent No.3 and the same had not been complied with, then the
order dated 22.8.2014 passed by the DOE, ought to be set aside and
quashed for having failed to adhere to the said directions.
8. On 31.10.2014, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 &
2/DOE had sought time to obtain instructions from the department as
to whether the requisite documents were furnished to the
petitioner/School in terms of the directions issued in the aforecited
writ petitions and if so, the date of furnishing the said documents.
9. Today, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2/DOE
states, on instructions, that as per the records, the representation
submitted by the respondent No.3 to the Director of Education, was
not furnished to the petitioner/School, though both the parties had
furnished their respective statements of accounts in respect of each of
the teachers, that were duly examined by the Director of Education.
10. Considering the fact that specific directions were issued to the
respondents No.1 & 2/DOE to furnish the representation submitted by
the respondent No.3 to the petitioner/School, before eliciting any
response from the School, and the said directions were not complied
with by the respondents No.1 & 2, this Court has no option but to
quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22.8.2014. Ordered
accordingly. It is now directed that the respondents No.1 & 2/DOE
shall furnish the representation received from the respondent No.3 to
the petitioner/School within two weeks from today, whereafter the
petitioner/School shall give its response to the said representation
within three weeks therefrom. The parties shall appear for a hearing
before the Director of Education or his nominee on 7.1.2015 at 2.30
PM.
11. At this stage, counsels for the respondents No.1 & 2/DOE and
the respondent No.3 state that invariably the representative of the
petitioner/School did not turn up on the date and time fixed by the
DOE and resultantly, the matter had got delayed quite unnecessarily.
12. To redress the aforesaid grievance, it is directed that if the
petitioner/School is not represented before the Director of
Education/his nominee on the date and time fixed hereinabove, then
the respondents No.1 & 2/DOE shall be at liberty to consider the
representations of the respondents No.3 and the response received
from the petitioner/School and proceed to pass an order in
accordance with law, under written intimation to the parties. The said
order shall be passed within four weeks reckoned from 7.1.2015. If
either party is aggrieved by the order passed, then they shall be
entitled to seek legal recourse.
13. All the writ petitions are disposed of, along with the pending
applications on the aforesaid lines.
A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the
respondents No.1 & 2/DOE.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NOVEMBER 13, 2014 JUDGE
sk/rkb
