Mr. Anil Kaushik, Advocate for Ms. Shilpa Singh, Advocate v. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS .....

1. Ms. Indrani Ghosh, learned counsel, who had appeared for the respondents No.3 in the earlier round of litigation, states that she has instructions to appear for the respondents No.3 in the present cases as well. She submits that she shall file her power of attorney within one week. A complete set of the paper book be furnished to the learned counsel within two days.

2. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for setting aside the order dated 22.8.2014 passed by the respondent No.1/Director of Education. The facts of all the seven 2014:DHC:6005 cases are more or less similar. For the sake of convenience, the facts of W.P.(C) 7413/2014 are being taken note of.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/School states that the respondents No.3, who was teaching in the petitioner/School, had superannuated on 31.5.2007; in September, 2008, the recommendations made by the Sixth Pay Commission were published making new pay scales applicable w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Thereafter, the respondents No.3 had filed a representation to the School, claiming arrears of salary, gratuity, leave encashment, etc. The said request was declined by the petitioner/School in the year 2010. Aggrieved by the said refusal, in March, 2011, the respondents No.3 herein had filed a writ petition in this Court, registered as WP(C)No.2617/2011. Other aggrieved teachers had also filed similar petitions.

4. After hearing the parties in the aforesaid writ petitions, a common order was passed on 04.07.2013, observing inter alia that various contentious issues were involved in the case and the factual position was required to be examined. It was therefore deemed appropriate to direct the petitioners in the connected petitions, including the respondents No.3 herein, to make substantive representations to the DOE, raising all the grievances against the school, including those subject matter of the petitions filed by them. It was further directed that the said representations would be considered by the respondent No.4/DOE, who was called upon to fix a date of hearing, on which both the parties would remain present. While parting with the case, it was clarified that each of the petitioners in the connected petition would make detailed representations to the Director of Education within six weeks specifying inter alia their entitlement, the extent of their entitlement along with the outstanding amounts received/claimed by them. On receipt of the said representations, the Director of Education was directed to issue notices to the concerned schools, for giving their written response to the representations and after granting a personal hearing to the parties, pass a speaking order.

5. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner/School that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 4.7.2013, the School had received a letter dated 7.9.2013 from the respondent No.2/Deputy Director of Education, calling upon it to furnish the documents for preparing the due amount in respect of the respondents No.3.

6. In reply to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner/School had asked for the details of the representations made by the respondent No.3 in terms of the order dated 4.7.2013. However, without furnishing copies of the representations, the respondent No.2/Deputy Director of Education had called upon the petitioner/School to produce the relevant documents on 25.9.2013. The petitioner/School had then submitted all the documents as directed and on 9.5.2014, the parties had appeared before the respondent No.1/Director of Education. This was followed by the impugned order dated 22.8.2014 passed by the respondent No.1/ Director of Education, directing the petitioner/School to pay the arrears of salary, gratuity, leave encashment, etc., to the respondent No.3.

7. The sole contention of the counsel for the petitioner/School is that once there was a specific direction issued by the Court in the connected petitions on 4.7.2013, calling upon the Director of Education to furnish a copy of the representation given by the respondent No.3 and the same had not been complied with, then the order dated 22.8.2014 passed by the DOE, ought to be set aside and quashed for having failed to adhere to the said directions.

8. On 31.10.2014, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2/DOE had sought time to obtain instructions from the department as to whether the requisite documents were furnished to the petitioner/School in terms of the directions issued in the aforecited writ petitions and if so, the date of furnishing the said documents.

9. Today, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2/DOE states, on instructions, that as per the records, the representation submitted by the respondent No.3 to the Director of Education, was not furnished to the petitioner/School, though both the parties had furnished their respective statements of accounts in respect of each of the teachers, that were duly examined by the Director of Education.

10. Considering the fact that specific directions were issued to the respondents No.1 & 2/DOE to furnish the representation submitted by the respondent No.3 to the petitioner/School, before eliciting any response from the School, and the said directions were not complied with by the respondents No.1 & 2, this Court has no option but to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22.8.2014. Ordered accordingly. It is now directed that the respondents No.1 & 2/DOE shall furnish the representation received from the respondent No.3 to the petitioner/School within two weeks from today, whereafter the petitioner/School shall give its response to the said representation within three weeks therefrom. The parties shall appear for a hearing before the Director of Education or his nominee on 7.1.2015 at 2.30 PM.

11. At this stage, counsels for the respondents No.1 & 2/DOE and the respondent No.3 state that invariably the representative of the petitioner/School did not turn up on the date and time fixed by the DOE and resultantly, the matter had got delayed quite unnecessarily.

12. To redress the aforesaid grievance, it is directed that if the petitioner/School is not represented before the Director of Education/his nominee on the date and time fixed hereinabove, then the respondents No.1 & 2/DOE shall be at liberty to consider the representations of the respondents No.3 and the response received from the petitioner/School and proceed to pass an order in accordance with law, under written intimation to the parties. The said order shall be passed within four weeks reckoned from 7.1.2015. If either party is aggrieved by the order passed, then they shall be entitled to seek legal recourse.

13. All the writ petitions are disposed of, along with the pending applications on the aforesaid lines. A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2/DOE. (HIMA KOHLI) NOVEMBER 13, 2014 JUDGE sk/rkb