Delhi High Court
Vandana Rana vs Directorate Of Education & Ors on 2 February, 2017
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5757/2016 and C.M. No.23727/2016 (stay)
VANDANA RANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.A. Niyazi, Advocate with Ms.
Anamika Ghai Niyazi, Advocate and
Ms. Kirti Jaswal, Advocate.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC with Ms.
Niti Jain, Advocate for respondent
No.1.
Ms. Kiran Singh, Advocate with Mr.
Mahesh Sharma, Advocate for
respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
ORDER
% 02.02.2017
1. The petitioner by this writ petition is seeking the relief of
making his ad hoc/contractual appointment as permanent with the
respondent no.3/Army Public School, Sadar Bazar Road Branch, Delhi
Cantt-10 by relying upon the ratio of the judgment delivered by this Court in
three connected cases with lead case being Army Public School and Anr.
Vs. Narendra Singh Nain and Anr. in W.P.(C) No.1439/2013 decided on
W.P.(C) No.5757/2016 page 1 of 5
30.8.2013. The judgment in the case of Army Public School and Anr.
(supra) was taken in challenge to a Division Bench of this Court and the
Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.10.2015 in bunch of
LPAs with lead LPA No.223/2015, dismissed the appeal filed by Army
Welfare Education Society. The schools run by the Army Welfare
Education Society in the judgment dated 29.10.2015 includes the respondent
no.3/school. The Army Welfare Education Society challenged the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court dated 29.10.2015 by filing an SLP, and
which SLP(C) No.3609/2016 was dismissed by the Supreme Court in limine
vide its order dated 12.2.2016.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 could not dispute that
accordingly petitioner has to get the benefit of the judgment delivered by
this Court in the case of Army Public School and Anr. (supra) and later
judgment of this Court in the case titled as Renu Barrot Vs. The Directorate
of Education & Ors. in W.P.(C) No.6180/2013 decided on 27.4.2015
inasmuch as petitioner has worked with the respondent no.3/school as a
Library Attendant in terms of various appointment letters describing the
petitioner as a Library Attendant. It is clarified that though in the writ
W.P.(C) No.5757/2016 page 2 of 5
petition, petitioner claims to be a Junior Librarian, in view of consistent
appointment letters of the petitioner being appointed as Library Attendant,
petitioner today only seeks the relief of being regularized and made
permanent against the post of Library Attendant.
3. In view of the above facts, the petitioner will be treated as
being a regular and permanent employee on completion of period of three
years from the date of his appointment of the petitioner with the respondent
no.3/school. The date of first appointment of the petitioner with the
respondent no.3/school is 9.7.2007 i.e petitioner will become a permanent
employee of the respondent no.3 from 9.7.2010. It is further clarified that
petitioner having become permanent employee of the respondent no.3 w.e.f
9.7.2010, she should since this date get service benefits in terms of Section
10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 i.e petitioner must get monetary
benefits equal to a government teacher/employee on the same post of the
petitioner being a Library Attendant, however, since law of limitation
applies to a writ petition in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamta Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC
436, petitioner no doubt will be entitled to the same pay scale and same
W.P.(C) No.5757/2016 page 3 of 5
monetary benefits payable to the Library Attendant in a government school
or government aided school, except the fact that such monetary benefits will
be payable to the petitioner prospectively from the date three years before
filing of the writ petition on 28.6.2016. To clarify further, w.e.f 28.6.2013,
and not before, petitioner will be entitled to monetary emoluments and
benefits as payable to a Library Attendant or a person having appointed to a
similar type of post with qualifications of the petitioner in a government
school or government aided school. Petitioner's services however for the
purpose of subsequent service benefits will be taken as petitioner having
been confirmed w.e.f 9.7.2010 and as regards his future promotion or
MACP benefits or pensionary benefits or any other benefits as payable on
account of number of years of services of the petitioner with the respondent
no.3/school.
4. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed making the
petitioner permanent in her services w.e.f 9.7.2010 noting that petitioner's
first appointment commenced from 9.7.2007, with the further relief to the
petitioner that prospectively from 28.6.2013 petitioner will get all monetary
benefits payable to an equivalent or roughly equivalent positioned employee
W.P.(C) No.5757/2016 page 4 of 5
in a government school or government aided school. Petitioner's services
however will in accordance with law be treated as having been confirmed
from 9.7.2010 and with the period of services being taken as per law, if so
required, from 9.7.2007. Respondent no.3 will now calculate the monetary
emoluments which would be payable to the petitioner taking the
qualification of the petitioner as compared to similarly qualified
persons/employees/teachers employed in posts in a government school or
government aided school and such monetary benefits from 28.6.2013 will be
paid by the respondent no.3 to the petitioner within a period of three months
from today.
5. Writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of with the
aforesaid observations.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
FEBRUARY 02, 2017
Ne
W.P.(C) No.5757/2016 page 5 of 5
