Delhi High Court
Bijender Singh Panwar vs Director Of Education & Anr. on 31 October, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 31 st October, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 5591/2013
BIJENDER SINGH PANWAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Vijendra Mahndiyan &
Ms. Pallavi Awasthi, Advocates
Versus
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Addl.
Standing Counsel & Mr. Manzar Anis,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
1. Petitioner is a retired Trained Graduate Teacher (hereinafter
referred to as „TGT‟), who had retired from Shaeed Udham Singh
Samarak (Co-Ed) Secondary School (Recognized & Aided), Shastri
Nagar, Delhi on 30th June, 2013 and is aggrieved by withholding of
Selection Grade benefits granted to him since the year 1985. The
challenge in this writ petition is to the noting in impugned letter of 22nd
July, 2013 (Annexure P-8 colly). Infact, vide impugned noting, first
respondent had sought information regarding details of recovery, if any,
and vide subsequent letter of 13th August, 2013, petitioner was intimated
about recovery of Selection Grade benefits. The grievance of petitioner is
that despite issuance of "No Dues Certificate", the benefits accrued by
grant of Selection Grade has been illegally withheld by first respondent
despite judgment in civil suit i.e. S-1661/06/94, Smt. Kamlesh Mittal Vs.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & ors., decided on 5th September, 2011 (Annexure
P-5), wherein it has been categorically held that the benefit of Selection
Grade granted to petitioner herein should not be disturbed. It was
categorically clarified in the said decision that petitioner should not be
deprived of any of the benefits.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the aforesaid Civil
Court judgment of 5th September, 2011 (Annexure P-5) was challenged
by first respondent by way of an appeal, which stands dismissed vide
order of 19th October, 2013 (Annexure P-17). It is further submitted by
petitioner's counsel that judgment of 5th September, 2011 (Annexure P-5)
of Civil Court, upheld by Appellate Court vide order of 19 th October,
2013 (Annexure P-17), precludes first respondent from withholding the
benefit of Selection Grade to petitioner.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for first respondent submits that
petitioner had interpolated marks given to him under the marking scheme
(in selection of „TGT‟) from 10 marks to 16 marks and so, his total was
higher than that of Smt. Kamlesh Mittal. So far as decision of Civil Court
(Annexure P-5), which has been upheld by Appellate Court vide order
Annexure P-17, is concerned, the stand of counsel for first respondent is
that there was no cross-examination of the witnesses before the Civil
Court by respondents herein and so, interpolation aspect could not be
brought to light.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned letter (Annexure P-8
colly), judgment of Civil Court (Annexure P-5) as well as of Appellate
Court (Annexure P-17), I find that in the face of judgment of Civil Court,
respondents are precluded from withholding the benefit of grant of
Selection Grade granted to petitioner way back in the year 1985. Such a
view is being taken because the orders of Civil Court as well as Appellate
Court, have attained finality and also for the reason that there is no
justification for respondent to ignore the Civil Court decision by merely
contending that there was no cross-examination of witnesses.
5. In view of aforesaid, this petition is allowed with direction to first
respondent to release the benefit of Selection Grade to petitioner within
six weeks. However, in view of peculiarity of instant case, this Court is
not inclined to grant interest on the arrears of Selection Grade amount
payable to petitioner but if it is not released to petitioner within six
weeks, then it shall carry interest @ 6% per annum till realisation.
6. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 31, 2017
r
