Delhi High Court
C.K.P.Naidu vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 17 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 17.09.2014
% W.P.(C) 822/2014 and C.M. No. 1656/2014
C.K.P NAIDU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Advocate.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gursharan Singh, Advocate.
% W.P.(C.) No. 756/2014 and C.M. No.1518/2014
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate.
versus
C.K.P NAIDU ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioner/ C.K.P Naidu (hereinafter referred to as "Naidu") has
preferred W.P.(C.) No. 822/2014 under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to assail the order dated 07.11.2013 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT/Tribunal) in O.A. No.708/2013, insofar as
the Tribunal declined the petitioner's prayer for arrears and benefits while
granting his prayer for grant of re-employment as Principal uptill the age of
62 years. Naidu also assails the subsequent order dated 17.12.2013 passed
by the Tribunal in R.A. No.201/2013, whereby the Tribunal rejected his
review application.
2. The GNCTD has assailed the same order of the Tribunal in their writ
petition being W.P.(C.) 756/2014, in so far as it directs the re-employment
of CKP Naidu on the post of Principal.
3. Naidu retired from the post of Deputy Education Officer (Zone-13) on
31.05.2012. The GNCTD/respondents had a scheme whereunder the Vice-
Principal and Principal of Government and Government Aided Schools were
granted re-employment as PGT for a period of one year, extendable by
another period of one year till they attain the age of 62 years, based on the
performance and subject to fitness and vigilance clearance.
4. Since Naidu was not granted re-employment in terms of the order
dated 31.12.2012, he preferred O.A. No.708/2013. As noticed above, the
Tribunal allowed the said application inasmuch, as, the Tribunal directed the
respondents to "grant re-employment to the applicant as Principal within a
period of fifteen days from the receipt of this order. The applicant will be
granted benefit of re-employment from the date of joining service on re-
employment uptill the date of 62 years. We do not find any merit in the
applicant's prayer that all arrears and benefits from 1.06.2012 should be
granted as he did not discharge any duties from 1.06.2012 onwards. He will
be eligible for the benefits of re-employment only from the date of joining
service on re-employment. No costs".
5. Naidu then moved a review application contending that in the light of
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. K.V.
Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, he was entitled to arrears of pay and
allowances for the period that he had not been granted re-employment till
the date of his rejoining as Principal. The Tribunal rejected the review by
observing that the present was a case of re-employment and not a case where
the petitioner was facing disciplinary proceedings and, therefore, the
judgment in K.V. Jankiraman (supra) was not applicable in the facts of the
present case.
6. Learned counsel for Naidu submits that there was no justification in
denying re-employment to the petitioner as Principal under the policy. He,
therefore, submits that since Naidu had been denied re-employment
unjustifiably - which was eventually quashed by the Tribunal, and Naidu
was ready and willing to offer his service upon re-employment, he is entitled
to arrears of pay and allowances. Learned counsel submits that the principle
of "no work no pay" could not have been invoked to deny the salary and
emoluments as re-employed Principal in the present case, since it was the
respondents who unjustifiably did not grant re-employment and did not
allow the petitioner to discharge his duties. He also placed reliance on the
judgment in K.V. Jankiraman (supra).
7. Learned counsel for GNCTD submits that there is no vested right in a
retired Principal/ Vice-Principal to get re-employed. Each case has to be
examined on its own merits, and in the present case, there was sufficient
material to deny re-employment. It is also submitted that the scheme does
not, in any event, provide for re-employment as Principal/ Vice- Principal,
but only as a PGT.
8. We have considered the rival submissions. This Court has taken the
view that even on re-employment, a retired Principal has no right to be re-
employed as a Principal and under the scheme, he can only be re-employed
as a PGT. In this regard, reference may be made to Shashi Kohli vs.
Directorate of Education in WP(C) No. 4330/2010 decided on 29.04.2011.
The Court held that the grant of extension is not a matter of right. The
retired Principal/ Vice-Principal only has a right to be considered, that too
only for posts till PGT, and the school has a right to deny re-employment.
The petitioner has no vested right to re-employment. As per the scheme, the
re-employment can be to the post of PGT, and not to the post of Principal.
On this short ground, the impugned order of the Tribunal, granting re-
employment to Naidu cannot be sustained.
9. We may also observe that there could be situations where despite a
retired Principal/ Vice-Principal being otherwise eligible for being
considered to be appointed as a PGT, he may not be so appointed looking to
the number of teachers already in employment in the concerned school. It is
possible that there may be no vacancy and the school may not have any
work for the re-employed PGT. In our view, the purport of the scheme is
not to thrust a retired Principal/ Vice-Principal upon a school when it has no
work for him/her.
10. It is seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 07.11.2013
that the denial of re-employment was premised on three grounds, namely:
i) While the applicant was working as Principal in Sarvodaya Co-
Ed. Vidyalaya, Sector-6, Rohini, he was appointed inquiry
officer to inquire into the matter of Shri N.R. Garg but he
delayed the inquiry and ultimately retired on 31.05.2012
without submitting the inquiry report;
ii) The applicant failed to go through the orders of CAT in one
case and thus flouted the orders of the Court; and
iii) Lapses were found on the part of the applicant as Deputy
Education Officer (Zone 13) in the matter of irregularities in
recognition and upgradation of Maxfort School, Sector-23,
Rohini.
The Tribunal found that the aforesaid grounds were not justified to
deny re-employment to Naidu.
11. A perusal of the decision of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal
proceeded to grant relief to Naidu on the basis of the clearance granted by
the vigilance department, who opined that Naidu was not guilty of grave
misconduct. At the same time, it cannot be said that there was no
negligence on the part of Naidu in his conduct as a Principal. Thus, the
decision of the GNCTD not to grant re-employment to Naidu could not be
said to be arbitrary, whimsical or discriminatory. There was a rational basis
for that decision. As aforesaid, Naidu merely had a right to be considered
for re-employment, but had no right to be re-employed.
12. Consequently, the petition preferred by Naidu must fail. We,
accordingly, set aside the order of the Tribunal granting re-employment to
Naidu as Principal uptill the age of 62 years.
13. We have, even otherwise, examined the plea of Naidu and we do not
find any merit therein.
14. Even if it were to be accepted that Naidu was entitled to re-
employment as a PGT under the Scheme, in our view the Tribunal was also
right in observing that the decision in K.V. Jankiraman (supra) was not
applicable in the facts of the present case, since the said decision deals with
the case of an employee and not one who is seeking re-employment.
15. For the above reasons, the impugned order of the Tribunal is hereby
set aside and W.P.(C.) No.756/2014 preferred by GNCTD is, accordingly,
allowed. W.P.(C.) No. 822/2014 is dismissed. No costs.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
SEPTEMBER 17, 2014
sr
