Suresh Chand Sharma v. The Director of Education & Ors.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondents No.1 to 3 /Directorate of Education (DOE) and the respondents No.4 & 5/School for releasing his salaries for the period w.e.f. 1.7.2013 to 05.12.2013, alongwith interest. Further, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondent No.2 to modify the re-employment order dated 06.12.2013, to make it effective from 1.7.2013 instead of 06.12.2013.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working on the post of Vice-Principal in the respondent No.4/School, which is a 2014:DHC:7234 Government aided School, till he had superannuated on 30.6.2013. During the period of his employment, an order dated 27.1.2012 was issued by the Lieutenant Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, whereunder permission was granted for re-employment of all the retired Vice Principals/Principals of Government and under the Directorate of Education, for a period of one year, extendable for another one year, based on the performance and subject to fitness and vigilance clearance, or till they attain the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier.

3. In terms of the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondents No.4 & 5/School on 5.2.2013, seeking re-employment upon his superannuation in June, 2013. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner’s request alongwith the relevant papers was forwarded by the respondents No.4 & 5/School to the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE on 13.06.2013.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that for the next five months, his file kept moving between the office of the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE and the respondents No.4 & 5/School and finally, an order dated 06.12.2013 was passed by the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE recommending his case for re-employment on the post of Principal in the respondents No.4 & 5/School with immediate effect for the period of one year, extendable for another year based on the performance and subject to fitness and vigilance clearance, till he would attain the age of 62 years, whichever was earlier. Further, it was ordered that the petitioner would get the financial benefits w.e.f. the date of assumption of work. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that based on the order dated 1.7.2013 issued by the respondents No.4 & 5/School, re-employing him w.e.f. the said date, the petitioner had started discharging his duties as a Principal of the School, but he has been denied his salary for the period between 1.7.2013 to 05.12.2013 for no fault of his.

6. On the last date of hearing, a perusal of the counter affidavits filed by the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE and the respondents No.4 & 5/School revealed that both were incomplete in the narration of facts as they did not furnish the relevant details with regard to the movement of the file from the date the petitioner had submitted his application for reemployment on superannuation to the respondents No.4 & 5/School on 5.2.2013, till 06.12.2013, when the order of the re-employment was issued by the respondent No.1/DOE. Further, the relevant records were also not produced by the respondents for the court’s perusal. Accordingly, the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE and the respondents No.4 & 5/School were directed to file separate affidavits giving a chronology of the relevant list of dates and events for the Court to assess as to where did the fault lie and accordingly apportion the amount payable to him for the period in question. In compliance of the aforesaid order, affidavits have been filed by the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE and the respondents No.4 & 5/School.

7. On examining the aforesaid affidavits, the position that emerges is that on 05.02.2013, the petitioner had submitted an application to the respondents No.4 & 5/School seeking reemployment. On 1.5.2013, the Managing Committee of the School had passed a resolution recommending the petitioner’s case for re-employment. On 13.06.2013, the School had processed the petitioner’s file and forwarded it to the DOE. When the file was perused by the DOE, it had transpired that the documents furnished by the School were incomplete and it was noted that the Manager had signed the documents in the file without dating the same and further, the date of issuance of the petitioner’s retirement order was not indicated in the file. Lastly, the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner was dated 25.07.2013 and therefore his medical fitness could not have been assessed prior thereto. As a result, the file was returned by the DOE to the School on 12.07.2013, to make good the deficiencies that were pointed out.

8. The said file was resubmitted by the respondents No.4 and 5/School to the DOE on 26.07.2013, but this time, the minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee of the School, recommending the petitioner’s case for re-employment were not placed in the file. Resultantly, on 02.08.2013, the file had to be returned by the DOE to the respondents No.4 and 5/School and it was re-submitted to the DOE on 19.08.2013, alongwith a copy of the relevant minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee. Thereafter, respondents No.1 to 3/DOE had retained the petitioner’s file from 19.08.2013 till 05.10.2013, when some further clarification was sought from the School. The School authorities had re-submitted the petitioner’s file after two days on 07.10.2013. As certain objections raised earlier had not been dealt with, the respondents No.4 and 5/School had re-submitted the petitioner’s file after removing the said objections only on 06.11.2013. After that, the file was retained by the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE for the period between 06.11.2013 to 05.12.2013 and finally, the re-employment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 06.12.2013.

9. Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE states that the Department has taken a decision to disburse arrears of pay and allowances to the petitioner for the period w.e.f. 06.11.2013 to 05.12.2013, when his file for re-employment was complete in all respects and was finally submitted by the School authorities. This leaves the period between 19.08.2013 to 05.10.2013, when admittedly, the file had remained pending at the end of the DOE, for which the School cannot be blamed.

10. Coming to the period between 06.10.2013 to 05.11.2013, it transpires that it is the respondents No.4 and 5/School that did not take prompt action to process the petitioner’s file and send it back to the DOE for purposes of finalizing his re-employment. As a result, the School is held liable to pay arrears of the petitioner’s salary for the said period. Further, there is no plausible explanation offered for the delay on the part of the respondents No.4 and 5/School in forwarding the petitioner’s file for the period w.e.f. 01.07.2013 to 18.08.2013.

11. Having regard to the sequence of events as narrated above, it is deemed appropriate to direct that the respondents No.4 & 5/School bear the burden of the petitioner’s salary for the period between 01.07.2013 to 18.08.2013 and the period between 06.10.2013 to 05.11.2013. As for the period between 19.08.2013 to 05.10.2013, it is apparent from the sequence of events narrated above that the delay for the said period is attributable to the DOE. Accordingly, the DOE is held liable to pay the salary of the petitioner for the aforesaid period.

12. Both, the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE and the respondents No.4 & 5/School shall take steps to release the salary of the petitioner on the aforesaid lines, within a period of six weeks from today, along with interest payable @ 9% per annum from the date the said amounts had become due and payable, till realization. If the entire amounts are not paid within the period of six weeks, then the interest payable shall increase from 9% per annum to 12% per annum, till realization.

13. The writ petition is disposed of, while quantifying the litigation expenses at `7,500/-, to be equally borne by the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE and the respondents No.4 and 5/School. (HIMA KOHLI) DECEMBER 18, 2014 JUDGE sk/rkb