Delhi High Court
Ravinder Kumar Jain vs The Director Of Education, Govt. ... on 15 February, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: February 15, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 5946/2016
RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shravan Dev, Advocate with
petitioner in person
Versus
THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi,
Advocate for respondent No.1-DoE
Mr. Amit Dayal, Advocate for respondents
No.3 & 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Petitioner, who was working as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT)
in Social Science, had submitted an application for re-employment on
26th August, 2011, as he was to superannuate on 30th November, 2011.
Petitioner's application for re-employment was approved by Management
Committee of respondent-School in its meeting held on 17th September,
2011 and petitioner's case for re-employment for two years was
forwarded to respondent- Directorate of Education on 24th December,
2011 and objections raised by respondent -Directorate of Education
were removed by respondent-School on 25th February, 2012 but the date
when objections were raised is not disclosed.
2. It is the stand of respondent-School that again on 4th April, 2012,
some other objections were raised by respondent- Directorate of
Education, which were removed and petitioner's case was resubmitted. It
is the case of respondent-School that unnecessary objections were raised
by respondent- Directorate of Education again, which were removed and
petitioner's case was resubmitted on 21st June, 2012 but the counter
affidavit filed by respondent- Directorate of Education is silent about
petitioner's case resubmitted by respondent-School in August, 2012. It is
also the case of respondent-School that once again petitioner's
application was returned by respondent-Directorate of Education in
November, 2012, which somehow got misplaced and since it could not be
traced, a duplicate file was prepared by respondent-School and was
submitted to respondent- Directorate of Education on 17th April, 2013.
3. Respondent-School in its counter affidavit maintains that petitioner
had continued to teach after his retirement for a period of two years at his
own risk and petitioner had submitted an undertaking to respondent-
School that he would not claim salary in the event of his reappointment
not being approved by respondent- Directorate of Education. The
aforesaid aspects cannot be cross checked from counter affidavit filed by
respondent- Directorate of Education for the reason that counter affidavit
of respondent-Directorate of Education was filed prior to filing of
counter by respondent-School.
4. Impugned order of 10th February, 2014 (Annexure P-19 colly)
reveals that petitioner's case for re-employment could not be considered
by the competent authority, as the period of re-employment had expired.
Petitioner was informed about impugned rejection of 10 th February, 2014
(Annexure P-19 colly) vide communication of 18th February, 2014 by
speed post.
5. It is the case of petitioner that he had submitted two letters of 3rd
November, 2014 and 12th January, 2015 to respondent- Directorate of
Education seeking release of his salary for the period of re-employment
and respondent- Directorate of Education vide impugned letter of 6th
June, 2015 (Annexure P-27) has declined to reconsider petitioner's case
while noting that his case for approval for re-employment was received
by respondent - Directorate of Education on 3rd December, 2013 i.e.
after expiry of period of re-employment.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned orders (Annexure P-19
colly & P-27) and the material on record, I find that petitioner's case for
re-employment was sent by respondent-School to respondent-
Directorate of Education after he had retired. Attention of this Court is
drawn to Communication of 25th February, 2012 (Annexure P-9) which
reveals that a copy of full Resolution of School's Management
Committee was sought by respondent- Directorate of Education and the
same were re-submitted by respondent-school on 4th April, 2012
(Annexure P/10). As per Communication of 21st June, 2012 (Annexure P-
7), respondent-School had brought to the notice of respondent -
Directorate of Education that the aforesaid Resolution has been already
attached. As per Communication of 9th August, 2012 (Annexure P-12),
petitioner's file for re-employment was again resubmitted, as the said file
was received by respondent -School with the remarks "please speak".
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, respondent- Directorate of
Education has no valid justification to decline its approval merely on the
ground that petitioner's case for re-employment was received after the
date of his retirement. Petitioner's claim for payment of his salary cannot
be negated on the ground that the period of re-employment has come to
an end. It is so said because petitioner has already worked during the
period of re-employment and the delay in granting approval to
petitioner's re-employment cannot be attributed to him. Since no valid
reason is forthcoming for denial of approval to petitioner's re-
employment, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to direct respondent-
Directorate of Education to ensure that petitioner's salary for the period
of his re-employment is paid to him within a period of twelve weeks.
8. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 15, 2018
r
