Delhi High Court
Dinesh Khullar vs Directorate Of Education And Anr. on 3 December, 2020
$~A-95
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 03.12.2020
+ W.P.(C) 9798/2020
DINESH KHULLAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Girish Sharma, Advocate
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ANR...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel GNCTD (Services) with
Mr. N.K. Singh & Ms. Palak
Rohmetra, Advocates for R-1
Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Rupendra Pratap Singh &
Ms. Vasudha Bajaj, Advocates for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 31217/2020
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9798/2020
1. Petitioner was appointed as Hostel Superintendent, on temporary
basis, by Respondent No. 2 on 18.07.2016 and the appointment was
further extended for limited periods. Thereafter the Petitioner was
appointed on regular basis after undergoing the procedure for selection
through an interview and was placed on probation for one year from
23.11.2016 to 23.11.2017. The probation period was extendable by one
year as per the terms of the appointment letter.
2. Vide order dated 21.11.2019 Respondent No. 2 considered the
Petitioner for confirmation but decided not to confirm the service of the
Petitioner and discharged him.
3. Challenge in the present petition is to non-payment of a sum of Rs.
1,76,337/- to the Petitioner in lieu of three month's notice period, which
according to the Petitioner was mandatory before discharging the
Petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks to argue that the discharge
order has been passed without the approval of the Directorate of
Education under Section 8 (2) of the Delhi School Education Act and
Rules, 1973. It is also argued that the Petitioner could not have been
discharged without a notice period of three months or salary in lieu
thereof.
5. In so far as the challenge to the discharge order is concerned, the
same can only be assailed before the Delhi School Education Tribunal in
view of the binding dicta of the Supreme Court in Shashi Gaur vs. NCT
of Delhi, [(2001) 10 SCC 445]. Petitioner has in the present petition
claimed the release of sum of Rs. 1,76,337/- in lieu of the notice period.
Mr. Puneet Mittal Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 rebuts
the submission of counsel for the Petitioner and argues that no notice is
required to be given as the Petitioner was discharged while on probation
due to unsuccessful completion of the probation period.
6. However, during the course of hearing, Mr. Mittal, on instructions,
has offered to pay to the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,76,337/- subject to his
undertaking that he shall not challenge the order of discharge dated
21.11.2019, impugned in the present petition.
7. Matter was passed over for Mr. Girish Sharma, learned counsel for
the Petitioner, to take instructions from the Petitioner with regard to the
said proposal. On second call, Mr. Sharma states that the Petitioner is
willing to accept the proposal and on receipt of sum of Rs. 1,76,337/- he
shall not challenge the discharge order dated 21.11.2019 in any Court.
8. Since the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, it is
directed that Respondent No. 2 shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,76,337/- to the
Petitioner within a period of one week from today, against
acknowledgment, by way of a Demand Draft. Petitioner shall remain
bound by his oral undertaking that on receipt of the above mentioned
amount he shall not challenge the discharge order dated 21.11.2019 in
any Court.
9. In view of the settlement between the parties no further orders are
required to be passed in the present petition, which is accordingly
disposed of.
10. It is, however, made clear that in case Respondent No. 2 does not
make payment of the amount mentioned above to the Petitioner within
the time limit given above, it shall be open to the Petitioner to take
recourse to the remedies available to him, in law, to assail his discharge.
JYOTI SINGH, J.
DECEMBER 03, 2020
rd
