Delhi High Court
School Management Of Rao Mohar ... vs Gaurav Sharma & Anr. on 16 January, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 16, 2018
(i) + W.P.(C) 9392/2015 & CMs 21916-17/2015
(ii) + W.P.(C) 9410/2015 & CMs 22005-06/2015
(iii) + W.P.(C) 9413/2015 & CMs 22011-12/2015
(iv) + W.P.(C) 9425/2015 & CMs 22025-26/2015
(v) + W.P.(C) 9445/2015 & CMs 22073-74/2015
SCHOOL MANAGEMENT OF RAO MOHAR SINGH
MEMORIAL SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL & ANR
....... Petitioners
Through: Mr. A.K. Singla, Senior Advocate
with Mr. H.D. Sharma and Mr. Rahul Shukla,
Advocates
Versus
GAURAV SHARMA & ANR.
CHIRANJEEV SARKAR & ANR.
BRIJESH UPADHYAY & ANR.
SUMIT TANDON & ANR.
NEERAJ TRIVEDI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Saurabh Chadda and Mr. Rohit
Bhagat, Advocates for respondent No. 1
Mr. Devesh Singh, ASC and Ms. Neelam
Kholiya, Advocate for respondent No. 2 with
Mr. Rahul Dav, Legal Assistant, Zone-22
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. The above-captioned petitions are directed against common
impugned order of 15th September, 2015 vide which Delhi School
Tribunal has directed reinstatement of respondents-Teachers and
regarding back wages, Rule 121 of the Delhi School Education Act and
the Rules 1973 has been invoked to permit respondents-Teachers to make
Representations to petitioners to seek back wages.
2. Since these petitions are directed against common impugned order,
therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these
petitions have been heard together and by this common judgment, they
are being disposed of.
3. The facts giving rise to these petitions are already noticed in
impugned order and so, need not be reproduced. Suffice to note that
respondents-Teachers are Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) and Post
Graduate Teachers (PGT), who were appointed, but no formal
appointment letters were issued to them and they were given salary in
cash. It is the case of respondents-Teachers that when they had agitated
their claim for proper salary, they were forced to resign. On the aspect of
validity of resignation tendered by respondents-Teachers, learned
Tribunal has held as under: -
"There is no mention in the above quoted minutes of
the Managing Committee allegedly held on 10.10.2012
that the resignation of the Appellants has been accepted.
There is no mention of the names of the employees whose
resignation has been accepted, mentioning of the names of
the employees whose resignation has been accepted is
most important thing in the circumstances when according
to the R1 and R2 that one of the signatory of the alleged
resignation Mr. Kamal Narain had withdrawn his
resignation and according to R1 and R2 Avinash was not
an employee of the Respondent School. No date is
mentioned from which the resignation has been accepted
in the said minutes of the meeting. In these circumstances
the alleged acceptance of the alleged resignation of the
Appellants is also against the provisions of Delhi School
Education Act and Rules-1973".
4. At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioners assails
impugned order while relying upon decision of Division Bench of this
Court in Deepshikha Saxena v. Management Committee of Shiksha Bharti
Senior Secondary Public School and Anr., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4962 to
submit that there is breach of trust between the parties and so, in lieu of
reinstatement, respondents-Teachers can be adequately compensated. It
is pointed out that in case of Deepshikha Saxena (Supra), composite
compensation of `4 lacs was awarded to respondent-Teacher. Thus, it is
submitted that a reasonable compensation be awarded to respondents-
Teachers instead of their reinstatement.
5. It is urged by learned senior counsel for petitioners that the
resignation letters were tendered by respondents-Teachers but somehow,
they were replaced by photocopies and that respondents-Teachers are
running their own coaching centres and are also employed elsewhere.
This is refuted by learned counsel for respondents-Teachers, who submits
that impugned order is justified in the facts and circumstances of this case
and so, these petitions deserve dismissal.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, material on record
and the decision cited, I find that the decision in Deepshikha Saxena
(supra) would not apply to the facts of the instant case as in the said case,
it was found that the concerned Teacher was gainfully employed,
whereas, in the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that
respondent-Teachers are gainfully employed. Since the original
resignation letters are not with petitioners, therefore, I find that there is no
palpable error in the impugned order.
7. So far as petitioners' plea of there being no vacancy is concerned, I
find that respondents-Teachers are required to be reinstated against the
existing vacancies or against the vacancies which arise in future. The
stand of learned counsel for respondents-Teachers is that the vacancies
are existing. On this aspect, respondent-Directorate of Education shall
ensure that respondents-Teachers are reinstated against the existing
vacancies, if available, within a period of twelve weeks and if there is no
existing vacancy, then respondent-Directorate of Education shall ensure
that respondents-Teachers are accommodated against first available
vacancy. It would be open to respondents-Teachers to make
Representations within a period of four weeks by recourse to Rule 121 of
the Delhi School Education Act and the Rules 1973 to seek back wages.
8. While upholding impugned order, the above captioned petitions
and the applications are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 16, 2018
s
