Full Text
Translation output
$-13,14, 16,18& 19 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) + W.P.ICl9512/2015& CM APPLN.22360/2015
AMIT KUMAR MALIK Petitioner
Through: Mr.J.S.Lamba,Mr.Ahmad Shahrooz and Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocates
AMIT KUMAR MALIK Petitioner
Through: Mr.J.S.Lamba,Mr.Ahmad Shahrooz and Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocates
VERSUS
GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL& ORS...Respondents
Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh,Advocatesfor respondents No.l and 2
Ms.Niti Jain,Advocate for Mr. Anuj Aggarwal,ASC for GNCTD
(ii) + W.P.(CJ 9517/2015& CM APPLN.22406/2015
SANJAY KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr.J.S. Lamba,Mr.Ahmad Advocates
Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh,Advocatesfor respondents No.l and 2
Ms.Niti Jain,Advocate for Mr. Anuj Aggarwal,ASC for GNCTD
(ii) + W.P.(CJ 9517/2015& CM APPLN.22406/2015
SANJAY KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr.J.S. Lamba,Mr.Ahmad Advocates
VERSUS
GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS...Respondents
Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh,Advocatesfor respondents No.l and 2
(iii) + W.PTCJ 9519/2015& CM APPLN.22408/2015
BUNTY CHAUDHARY Petitioner Advocates
Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh,Advocatesfor respondents No.l and 2
(iii) + W.PTCJ 9519/2015& CM APPLN.22408/2015
BUNTY CHAUDHARY Petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL&ORS...Respondents
W.Ps.(C)9512,9517,9519,9525&9528of2015 2015:DHC:11449
Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh,Advocates for respondents No.1 and 2
Mr.Devesh Singh,Advocate for respondent No.3 (iv) + W.P.(C)9525/2015& CM APPLN.22417/2015
AMIT KUMAR Petitioner Advocates
W.Ps.(C)9512,9517,9519,9525&9528of2015 2015:DHC:11449
Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh,Advocates for respondents No.1 and 2
Mr.Devesh Singh,Advocate for respondent No.3 (iv) + W.P.(C)9525/2015& CM APPLN.22417/2015
AMIT KUMAR Petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh,Advoeatesfor Mr.Devesh Singh,Advocate for respondent No.3
(v) + W.P.rCJ 9528/2015& CM APPLN.22420/2015 MAMTA CHAUDHARY Petitioner
Advoeates
(v) + W.P.rCJ 9528/2015& CM APPLN.22420/2015 MAMTA CHAUDHARY Petitioner
Advoeates
VERSUS
Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh,Advocates for
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
06.10.2015 In the above eaptioned five petitions, the challenge is to the
IV.Fs.fCJ 9512,9517,9519,9525&9528of2015 Page2 impugned order of 3"^^ July, 2015 (Annexure P-1) in which respondent-
School has observed that petitioners are not entitled to any back wages as the same has been set aside by this Court and on the principle of "No
WorkandNoPay"petitioners do not deserve to be given the back wages.
Since the challenge to the impugned order (Annexure P-1) is on identical grounds in the above captioned five petitions,therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties these petitions were heard together and by this common order,they are being disposed of.
It is pointed out by learned counsel for respondent-School that in is, paragraphs No.11 & 15 of the impugned order, petitioners have been called uponto give a declaration by way ofaffidavitto the effectthatthey were not gainfully employed for the period, the back wages are being claimed.
Learned counselfor petitioners submits thatthere is no difficulty in giving the said declaration by way of affidavit by petitioners, but paragraphs No.9 and 10 of the impugned order deserve to be set aside because it was premature on the part of respondent-School to have observed that petitioners are not entitled to any back wages on the principle of"No WorkandNoPay".
Upon hearing and on perusal ofthe impugned order and Rule 121 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, this Court finds that the observations made in paragraphs No.9 and 10 ofthe impugned order are uncalled for as respondent-School is expected to make up its mind only after the declaration so called for,is received.
In view ofthe aforesaid, these five petitions are disposed ofwhile making it clear that while taking no notice ofthe observations made in
W.Ps.fC)9512,9517,9519,9525&9528of2015 Page 3 paragraphs No.9 and 10 in the impugned order,respondent-School shall decide petitioners' claim for back wages after obtaining the requisite declaration/affidavit within a period oftwelve weeks.In case respondent-
School decides notto give full back wages to petitioners,then the reasons for doing so,shall be provided by respondent-School to petitioners within a period ofa week after the decision is taken.
With the above directions, the above captioned five petitions and the applications are disposed of.
Copy ofthis order be given dastito both the sides.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 06,2015 s W.Ps.
(C)9512,9517,9519,9525&9528of2015 Page4
06.10.2015 In the above eaptioned five petitions, the challenge is to the
IV.Fs.fCJ 9512,9517,9519,9525&9528of2015 Page2 impugned order of 3"^^ July, 2015 (Annexure P-1) in which respondent-
School has observed that petitioners are not entitled to any back wages as the same has been set aside by this Court and on the principle of "No
WorkandNoPay"petitioners do not deserve to be given the back wages.
Since the challenge to the impugned order (Annexure P-1) is on identical grounds in the above captioned five petitions,therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties these petitions were heard together and by this common order,they are being disposed of.
It is pointed out by learned counsel for respondent-School that in is, paragraphs No.11 & 15 of the impugned order, petitioners have been called uponto give a declaration by way ofaffidavitto the effectthatthey were not gainfully employed for the period, the back wages are being claimed.
Learned counselfor petitioners submits thatthere is no difficulty in giving the said declaration by way of affidavit by petitioners, but paragraphs No.9 and 10 of the impugned order deserve to be set aside because it was premature on the part of respondent-School to have observed that petitioners are not entitled to any back wages on the principle of"No WorkandNoPay".
Upon hearing and on perusal ofthe impugned order and Rule 121 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, this Court finds that the observations made in paragraphs No.9 and 10 ofthe impugned order are uncalled for as respondent-School is expected to make up its mind only after the declaration so called for,is received.
In view ofthe aforesaid, these five petitions are disposed ofwhile making it clear that while taking no notice ofthe observations made in
W.Ps.fC)9512,9517,9519,9525&9528of2015 Page 3 paragraphs No.9 and 10 in the impugned order,respondent-School shall decide petitioners' claim for back wages after obtaining the requisite declaration/affidavit within a period oftwelve weeks.In case respondent-
School decides notto give full back wages to petitioners,then the reasons for doing so,shall be provided by respondent-School to petitioners within a period ofa week after the decision is taken.
With the above directions, the above captioned five petitions and the applications are disposed of.
Copy ofthis order be given dastito both the sides.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 06,2015 s W.Ps.
(C)9512,9517,9519,9525&9528of2015 Page4
JUDGMENT