Delhi High Court
Modern Child Public Sr Sec School vs Umesh Gauba & Anr on 7 August, 2019
$~ 3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 07th August,2019
+ LPA 510/2019
MODERN CHILD PUBLIC SR SEC SCHOOL ..... Appellant
Through Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Mr. Naveen Kumar
& Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocates.
versus
UMESH GAUBA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for
R-1.
Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Ms. S. Bhuyan,
Ms.Shiva Pandey, Advocates for R-2
alongwith Mr. Deepak Kumar, LA,
Zone 17, Directorate of Education
(GNCTD).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM Appl. 35297/2019 (delay in filing)
1. This application has been filed by the applicant/appellant seeking
condonation of 36 days delay in filing the present appeal.
2. There is no opposition to the prayer made in the application.
Accordingly, the same is allowed. Delay of 36 days in filing the
present appeal is condoned.
3. The application stands disposed of.
LPA 510/2019
4. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 06.05.2019 passed by a
Single Judge of this Court, by which a petition has been allowed
without issuing notice to the appellant/respondent no.1 school.
5. The ground urged by respondent no.1/petitioner before the learned
Single Judge was that the order of suspension is illegal as no approval
was granted by the Directorate of Education and thus, the suspension
would stand lapsed in terms of Section 8(4) and Rule 115 of Delhi
School Education Act and Rules, 1973.
6. Notice. Counsels for the respondents accept notice.
7. Mr. A.K. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition issued a
direction directing the respondents/appellant herein to pay full salary
with consequential benefits to respondent no.1 w.e.f. 05.02.2019.
Counsel further submits that this order could not have been passed
without issuing notice to the appellant/school and without granting an
opportunity of hearing.
8. Ms. Mini Pushkarna, counsel appearing for respondent no.2 informs
the Court that respondent no.1 has since retired and a direction has
been passed by the learned Single Judge for full payment of salary
with consequential benefits to respondent no.1.
9. We have heard learned counsels for the parties. It is not in dispute that
when the order dated 06.05.2019 was passed, respondent no.1/school
was not representing nor notice has been issued whereas the relief was
claimed against the school. We may also note that the learned Single
Judge has quashed the order dated 05.02.2019, by which the
petitioner/respondent herein was suspended, and directed respondents
to pay full salary with consequential benefits to the petitioner. It seems
that the counsels, who were appearing in the matter did not bring to
the notice of the learned Single Judge that the school was not
represented/served.
10. Having regard to the fact that the learned Single Judge has passed an
order directing the respondent (appellant herein) to pay full salary with
consequential benefits without notice and without hearing the school,
we are of the view that the order dated 06.05.2019 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court is liable to be set aside. The matter
shall be heard afresh by the learned Single Judge after hearing all
parties.
11. Parties shall appear before the learned Single Judge on 19.08.2019.
12. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, counsel appearing for respondent no.1 points out
that even subsistence allowance has not been paid to respondent no.1.
13. Mr. Trivedi submits that in case the subsistence allowance has not
been paid to respondent no.1, he would ensure that the same be paid.
14. In view of the above directions, the appeal stands disposed of.
CM Appl. 35296/2019 (stay)
15. In view the order passed in the appeal, no orders are required to be
passed in this application.
16. The application is dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
JYOTI SINGH, J
AUGUST 07, 2019
ck
