Delhi High Court
Narender Singh vs Gnct Of Delhi And Ors on 16 December, 2015
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C).11179/2015
% Judgment dated 16th December, 2015
NARENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate
versus
GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Sharat Kapoor, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 09.09.2014 by which the
OA filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the subsequent order dated
28.05.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal(hereinafter
referred to for short as „the Tribunal‟) by which the review petition filed by
the petitioner was also dismissed.
2. The necessary facts to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition are
that the petitioner retired as Laboratory Assistant from G.G.Sr. Secondary
School which is established under the Directorate of Education,
Government of NCT of Delhi. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal
seeking a direction to the respondents to re-employ him forthwith as a
Laboratory Assistant on his retirement on 30.11.2013 and for release of his
salary. This prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal as the
Laboratory Assistant was not covered by the Notification of the Directorate
of Education dated 29.01.2007 which allows automatic re-employment to a
retiring teacher upto PGT level. It is strongly urged before this Court that
Laboratory Assistants are covered in the wider definition of a teacher.
Reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on
a decision rendered by a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Nutan
Gulati v. Director of Education and Ors., [W.P.(C). No.109/2013] decided
on 09.07.2013. Counsel submits that in response to the query raised, a
reply has been received that all Lab Assistants in a Senior Secondary
School falls under Category-III.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent who enters appearance on an advance
copy submits that in an identical matter another Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Sat Narain v. Directorate of Education & Ors.,
[WP(C) No.5374/2013 upheld the order of the Tribunal and held that the
Lab Assistant is not covered under the teaching staff.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The short question which arises for consideration is whether a Laboratory
Assistants would be covered under the definition of a Teacher and thus,
would be entitled to the benefit of the Notification dated 29.01.2007, which
allows automatic reemployment to all retiring Teachers upto to PGT level
subject to fitness and vigilance clearance till they attain the age of 62 years.
6. The post-wise distribution of sanctioned posts placed on record by the
respondents before the Tribunal would show that the Laboratory Assistants
falls in the category of a non-teaching staff.
"Postwise Distribution of Sanctioned Posts
Teaching Staff
Postgroup Post Allocated
DRG_TE Drawing Teacher 1
Lecturer-COMP Lecturer Computer Science 1
Lecturer Lecturer Economics 1
Lecturer Lecturer English 1
Lecturer Lecturer Hindi 1
Lecturer Lecturer Home Science 1
Lecturer Lecturer Political Science 1
Lecturer Lecturer Sanskrit 1
Librarian Librarian 1
Music Music Teacher 1
PET PET 1
PRIN Principal 1
SplEdnTr Special Education Teacher 1
TGT-COMP TGT Computer Science 2
TGT TGT English 2
TGT TGT Hindi 2
TGT TGT Math 2
TGT TGT Natural Science 2
TGT TGT Punjabi 1
TGT TGT Sanskrit 2
TGT TGT Social Science 2
VPRIN Vice Principal 1
WET Work Experience Teacher 1
YOGA YOGA Teacher 1
Non Teaching Staff
Postgroup Post Allocated
Class IV Peon full time 1
Class IV Waterman Full Time 1
Head Clerk Grade-II(DASS)/Head Clerk 1
Lab_Asst Lab Assistant 2
Supdt Grade-I (DASS/Superintendent 1
UDC Grade-III (DASS/UDC 1"
7. The judgment in the case of Nutan Gulati(supra), in our view, is not
applicable to the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid matter, the
Court had taken into consideration the Circular issued by the Director of
Education, as per which the Librarians in the Government have been
declared as teaching post for all purposes and the Librarians were to get
benefit which was applicable to the Teachers category prospectively.
However, no such circular has been placed by the petitioner on record.
8. In the case of Sat Narain (supra), an identical question came up for
consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. Paras 2 to 5 read as
under:
"2. Relying upon the said Notification as the foundation of his
claim, conscious of the fact that the petitioner was a
Laboratory Assistant and unless he was equated as a teacher
claim could not be premised, he relied upon a Notification
dated January 29, 2007, and a Circular issued by the
Government of NCT of Delhi as per which a special pay
was being paid to the Laboratory Assistants, Library
Assistants, Librarians and Teachers.
3. Suffice would it be to state that if the special allowance is
paid to different categories of employees that would not
mean that for all purposes they have to be treated as species
of the same genus.
4. Teachers are the ones who teach the three R?s in a class
room. Laboratory Assistants, as disclosed in the reply filed
to the Original Application, work in the Laboratories :
setting up apparatus, mixing solutions and salts for students
to experiment on.
5. The view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal as
per the impugned decision dated May 30, 2013 is that a
Laboratory Assistant cannot be treated as a teacher and thus
would not be entitled to the benefit of the Notification dated
January 29, 2007; and we agree."
9. The Tribunal in this case has examined all the submission made by the
counsel for the parties and, in our view, reached a correct decision. Even
otherwise, we see no reason to take a view different from Sat Narain
(supra).
10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
DECEMBER 16, 2015/pst
