Full Text
22nd April, 2013 HARJINDER KAUR ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Sherawat, Advocate.
HEMKUNT COLONY & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Advocate for R-1 &
R-2.
Mr. Amiet Andley, Adv. for R-3.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. In this writ petition three reliefs are claimed. The first is the claim for quashing of the suspension order dated 18.10.2011 and the second is the claim for setting aside of the suspension order as the period of six months under Rule 115(2) of the Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973, has expired and no fresh order has been passed. The third is the claim of salary for the months of August to November, 2009 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.
2. So far as the first prayer for quashing of the suspension order dated 18.10.2011 is concerned, I have had an occasion to consider this aspect in a bunch 2013:DHC:2008 of cases, lead cases being W.P.(C) No.8040/2011 titled as Tajinder Kaur Vs. Guru Harkishan Public School and Ors. decided on 16.4.2013, and W.P.(C) No.8412/2011 titled as Jatinder Kumar Saini Vs. School Management of G.H.P.S., Fateh Nagar & Ors. decided on 10.4.2013 wherein I have held that no prior or post facto approval of the Director of Education is required for suspension of an employee in view of the Division Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of Kathuria Public School vs. Director of Education, 123 (2005) DLT 89 and Delhi Public School & Anr. Vs. Shalu Mahendroo & Ors.(2013) 196 DLT 147(DB).
3. Accordingly, the writ petition seeking quashing of the suspension order on the ground that no prior permission was taken or post facto approval was taken for passing of the suspension order dated 18.10.2011 is misconceived and dismissed.
4. So far as the issue of suspension order having been passed on 18.10.2011 and not being continued thereafter is concerned, counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 states that since there is no specific time limit provided under Rule 115(2) of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, the Managing Committee of the school will now pass appropriate orders positively within a period of four weeks from today. This statement is taken on record and respondent Nos.[1] and 2 are directed accordingly.
5. So far as the relief in the writ petition with respect to claim of salary is concerned, counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 states that salary up to 18.10.2011 has already been paid to the petitioner and after the suspension order, the petitioner is being paid suspension allowance in accordance with the rules. In case, the petitioner has not been paid the salary from August to November, 2009 till date, the said amount or any balance payable will now be paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today alongwith the interest at 12% per annum simple.
6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, subject however to the aforesaid observations.
APRIL 22, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib