Delhi High Court
Dr. Nizam Elanhi vs North Delhi Municipal ... on 30 October, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: October 30, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 9509/2017 & C.Ms. 38636-37/2017
DR. NIZAM ELANHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Sastry & Mr. Ankur
Gosain, Advocates
Versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPARATION AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur & Mr. Shakti
Priyan Nair, Advocates for respondent No.1
Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey & Mr. Ashutosh
Kaushik, Advocates for respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
ORAL
1. Petitioner was as Assistant Teacher in a school of respondent-
North, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the
'North MCD') and as per discharge Certificate of 6th November, 1989
(Annexure P-2), he was relieved from his duties on the said date and had
joined second respondent- State Council of Educational Research &
Training (henceforth referred to as the 'SCERT') on 7th November, 1989
as a Lecturer and though, petitioner had sought technical resignation, but
he was treated as discharged as per Discharge Certificate (Annexure P-2).
Petitioner had retained his lien for two years and in August, 2010,
petitioner had made a Representation (Annexure P-7) to first respondent-
North, MCD and according to petitioner's counsel, it was responded to on
17th September, 2010 vide communication (Annexure P-8) wherein it
was disclosed that petitioner is entitled to pension on the basis of fourteen
years' of service. It is the claim of petitioner that he had retired in
August, 2009 from second respondent- SCERT and he had been
continuously making efforts, though orally, to seek retiral benefits from
first respondent- North, MCD and in November, 2016 only, petitioner had
approached the Public Grievance Commission (henceforth referred to as
the 'PGC'), who vide impugned order of 8th march, 2017 has found that
petitioner had completed only 12 years' of service with first respondent-
North, MCD and is ineligible for pro rata pension from first respondent-
North, MCD in terms of O.M. of 20th August, 1984 of Department of
Personnel and Training.
2. Upon notice, learned counsel for first respondent submits that the
PGC, who has passed the impugned order, has no jurisdiction to deal with
the subject matter of this petition. To submit so, counsel for first
respondent has placed reliance upon a booklet of PGC, which contains
the rules and procedure and attention of this court is drawn to Clause-12
thereof, which clearly mandates that the complaints pertaining to service
matters, shall not be entertained. Undisputedly, the subject matter of this
petition is indeed a service matter.
3. Be that as it may. Petitioner cannot be left without a remedy. In
the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to
permit petitioner to make a comprehensive and concise representation to
first respondent within two weeks. If any such representation is received
by first respondent- North, MCD, then it shall be dealt with by passing a
speaking order, uninfluenced by the impugned order of 8th March, 2017
of PGC and with reference to O.M. of 20th August, 1984 of Department
of Personnel and Training as also its communication of 17 th September,
2010 (Annexure P-8). The first respondent- North, MCD shall decide the
said Representation within six weeks of receipt thereof and its fate be
communicated to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner
may avail of the remedies, as available in law, if need be.
4. With aforesaid directions, this petition and applications are
disposed of.
5. Dasti.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 30, 2017
r
