Delhi High Court
Charu Jain vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct Of ... on 17 December, 2020
$~A-13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 17.12.2020
+ W.P. (C) 13032/2019
CHARU JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Sneha Mukherjee and Mr.
Sadiq Noor, Advocates.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, GNCT OF
DELHI AND ANR. .... Respondents
Through Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Ms.
Khushboo Nahar and Ms. Latika
Malhotra, Advocates for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
Hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
1. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the
following reliefs:-
a. To quash the termination letter 10.08.2019 by respondent
no. 2 and reinstate the petitioner on post of TGT Sanskrit.
b. To direct the respondent no. 2 to reserve the vacant post of
TGT Sanskrit pending hearing and disposal of the present
case.
c. To direct the respondent No. 1 to release salary of the
petitioner due for one year of her service.
d. To direct the respondent no. 1 to treat the petitioner in
continuation of service after reinstating the petitioner on the
post of TGT Sanskrit from date of initial appointment.
e. To direct the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 to
consider the effective date of appointment and calculation of
seniority from the first appointment date.
f. To direct the respondents for costs of the petition.
2. The substantial relief sought in the present petition is for quashing
the termination letter dated 10.08.2019 issued by Respondent No.
2/School as well as for reinstatement. A consequential relief for release of
salary for the period that the Petitioner has rendered service prior to the
termination has also been sought.
3. Ms. Sneha Mukherjee learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly
submits that since the issue of termination can only be agitated by remedy
of an appeal before the Tribunal, the Petitioner does not press the said
prayer.
4. Petition is accordingly disposed off with the liberty to the
Petitioner to assail the termination order by way of an appeal before the
Delhi School Education Tribunal constituted under Section 11 of the
Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973.
5. In so far as the relief of salary for the period that the Petitioner has
rendered service with the School, is concerned, the question whether the
appointment of the Petitioner was valid or otherwise will be decided by
the Tribunal, but the Petitioner cannot be deprived of the salary for the
period for which she has worked. Taking into account the totality of facts
and circumstances, the Director of Education is directed to release 95% of
the dues payable to the Petitioner and the School shall contribute the
remaining 5%. The payments shall be disbursed within a period of two
weeks from today. The payments so made shall be without prejudice to
the rights and contentions of either of the parties and the question of
liability/responsibility to make such payment is left open and shall be
decided at the appropriate stage.
6. I am fortified in my view on aspect of release of salary by a
decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Ms. Manisha Singh v. Govt. of
NCTD and Ors., W.P. (C) 438/2020 dated 24.02.2020 wherein the Court
had directed the Directorate of Education to release 95% of the dues
towards the Petitioner's salary and 5% was to be paid by the School
without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. In
somewhat similar circumstances. Relevant part of the order is as under:-
"Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances
and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either of
the parties, the Director of Education is directed to release
95% of the dues towards the petitioner's salary within two
weeks from today and within seven days of the receipt thereof,
the respondent no. 3 shall contribute the remaining 5% and
remit the dues towards salary for the period the petitioner has
undisputedly discharged the duties of the TGT (English) with
the respondent no. 3 - School. Such compliance should be
made without waiting for other formalities to be fulfilled. The
question of the actual responsibility or the liability to make
payment of such dues inter se the respondent no. 3 - School
and/or the Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, is
however kept open for consideration by the Court."
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case.
JYOTI SINGH, J
DECEMBER 17, 2020 /yo
