Full Text
Translation output
?
LHI
8, 11 and 15
* IN THE HIGII COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DE
+ W.P.(C) 212412012 and C.M. No.459712012 (stav)
CHA}IDA}{A BANDYOPADHYAY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikram Saini, Advocate'
LHI
8, 11 and 15
* IN THE HIGII COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DE
+ W.P.(C) 212412012 and C.M. No.459712012 (stav)
CHA}IDA}{A BANDYOPADHYAY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikram Saini, Advocate'
VERSUS
SHYAM PRASAD VIDYALYA SR.SECONDARY SCHOOL & ORS. ..... ResPondents
Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Verma, Advocate with Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Ms. Navratan Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
+ w.P.(C) 540912012 and C.M. No.l 1026 12012 (stav)
UIVIA MITRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Verma, Advocate with Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Ms. Navratan Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
+ w.P.(C) 540912012 and C.M. No.l 1026 12012 (stav)
UIVIA MITRA ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
SHYAMA PRASAD VIDYALAYA MANAGING COMMITTEE AND
ORS ""' ResPondents
+ W.P.(C) 782912012 and C.M. No.1970212012 (stay)
M.S.VERMA ""' Petitioner
W.P.(C) Nos.2I24, 5409 & 7829 of 2012 page I of 3
2013:DHC:7012
ORS ""' ResPondents
+ W.P.(C) 782912012 and C.M. No.1970212012 (stay)
M.S.VERMA ""' Petitioner
W.P.(C) Nos.2I24, 5409 & 7829 of 2012 page I of 3
2013:DHC:7012
VERSUS
\
SHYAMA PRASAD VIDYALAYA, SR. SEC. SCHOOL AND ORS..... ResPondents
SHYAMA PRASAD VIDYALAYA, SR. SEC. SCHOOL AND ORS..... ResPondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA o/o 16.07.2013
The limited issue in these cases is the entitlement of the petitioners to be considered for re-employment upto the age of 62 years'
This issue is no longer res integra and it has been held by a learned Single
Judge of this Court in the case of Shushi Kohli Vs. DOE (2011)179 DLT
440 that entitlement of an employee is not for re-appointment but only for being considered for re-employment for two years. This
The limited issue in these cases is the entitlement of the petitioners to be considered for re-employment upto the age of 62 years'
This issue is no longer res integra and it has been held by a learned Single
Judge of this Court in the case of Shushi Kohli Vs. DOE (2011)179 DLT
440 that entitlement of an employee is not for re-appointment but only for being considered for re-employment for two years. This
ORDER
has been upheld by the Division Bench in LPA Nos.414l2011 and 41512011 decided on 28.3.2012.
Accordingly, these petitions and applications are disposed of with the direction that the respondent-school will consider the re- employment of the petitioners within six weeks till the age of 62 years in
W.P.(C) Nos.2124,5409 & 7829 of 2012 e accordance with the ratio in the case of ^sft ashi Kohli (supra), (,Ct*r@
VALMIKI J. MEHTA' J
JULY 16,2013
Ne
W.P.(C) Nos.2124, 5409 & 7829 of 2012
Accordingly, these petitions and applications are disposed of with the direction that the respondent-school will consider the re- employment of the petitioners within six weeks till the age of 62 years in
W.P.(C) Nos.2124,5409 & 7829 of 2012 e accordance with the ratio in the case of ^sft ashi Kohli (supra), (,Ct*r@
VALMIKI J. MEHTA' J
JULY 16,2013
Ne
W.P.(C) Nos.2124, 5409 & 7829 of 2012