Full Text
Translation output
{Common Orders} HIGH COURT OF DELHI LPA No.223/2013 & CM No.6191/2013(Stay)
ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. Appellant
Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan along with Mr. Mukesh Jain, Advs.
ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. Appellant
Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan along with Mr. Mukesh Jain, Advs.
VERSUS
SH. NARENDRA SINGH NAIN AND ANR. Respondent
Through: Mr. N.A. Niyazi, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Chetan Sinha along with Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advs. for R-2.
LPA No.224/2013 & CM No.6193/2013(Stay)
ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. Appellant
Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan along with Mr. Mukesh Jain, Advs.
Through: Mr. N.A. Niyazi, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Chetan Sinha along with Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advs. for R-2.
LPA No.224/2013 & CM No.6193/2013(Stay)
ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. Appellant
Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan along with Mr. Mukesh Jain, Advs.
VERSUS
Ex. Sub. Maj. AYODHYA PRASAAD SEMWAL AND ANR. ... Respondent
Through: Mr. N.A. Niyazi, Adv.for R-1.
Mr. Chetan Sinha along with Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advs.for R-2. roRAP;
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
ORDER o/o 18.04.2013 CM No.6190/2013 CM No.6192/2013(Exemption)
Allowed,subject to just exception.
CM stands disposed of.
I PA No.223/2013 & LPA Nq.224/2013 Both these appeals are filed at the instance of Army Pubiic
School through its Managing Committee challenging two interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 18.3.2013 &
08.4.2013. Respondent No.l, Mr. Narendra Singh Nain in LPA
2013:DHC:8507-DB No.223/2013 was appointed as LDC and Respondent No.l, Ex. Sub.
Maj. Ayodhya Prasaad Semwal in LPA No.224/2013 was appointed as Office Superintendent in the appellant school and the services of both the respondents were terminated vide order dated 21.3.2010.
That order came to be passed on the ground that they were working on probation, though they were given regular grade of pay.
Nevertheless, the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') had set aside the said order with direction for reinstatement with full backwages and consequential benefits. The order of the Tribunal is questioned in the writ petition and the writ petition is still pending.
However, the learned Single Judge has rejected the request of the appellant school for grant of interim order, which order is even raised in the present appeal.
We have heard the respective counsel for the appellant as well as respondent No.l/staff. The question is as to whether the first respondent is entitled for the reinstatement or whether the termination is bad or not could be determined only in the writ petition. However, to meet the interest of justice for both the parties, we explored the possibility of interim arrangement till the writ petition is decided. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the first respondent would be reinstated and the backwages to which he is entitled will be deposited in this Court which may be put in Fixed Deposit and the interest accrued may be withdrawn by the respondent No.l once in three months and he will be reinstated with grade pay-scale which he was drawing on the date of termination.
In view of the said submission, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the appellant to reinstate the first respondent in both the appeals forthwith making him entitle to draw grade pay- scale as he was.drawing on the date of termination. The appellant school shall deposit the arrears of backwages, as ordered by the
Tribunal by 22.4.2013. The amount shall be deposited before the deposit in a nationalized bank. The respondent No.l in both the appeals is entitled to withdraw the interest once in three months.
The question relating to the termination and also withdrawal of amount deposited in the bank shall depend upon the final outcome of the writ petition.
It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant that pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal and the consequential denial of interim orders by the learned Single Judge, the respondent No.l has approached the Tribunal and obtained the order of attachment of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly submitted that he will not pursue the proceedings pending before the Tribunal in this regard. The said statement is recorded.
These appeals are accordingly disposed of.
Copy of orders be given ddsti under the signature ofthe Court
Master.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JAYANT NATH,J.
APRIL 18,2013/pmc
Through: Mr. N.A. Niyazi, Adv.for R-1.
Mr. Chetan Sinha along with Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advs.for R-2. roRAP;
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
ORDER o/o 18.04.2013 CM No.6190/2013 CM No.6192/2013(Exemption)
Allowed,subject to just exception.
CM stands disposed of.
I PA No.223/2013 & LPA Nq.224/2013 Both these appeals are filed at the instance of Army Pubiic
School through its Managing Committee challenging two interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 18.3.2013 &
08.4.2013. Respondent No.l, Mr. Narendra Singh Nain in LPA
2013:DHC:8507-DB No.223/2013 was appointed as LDC and Respondent No.l, Ex. Sub.
Maj. Ayodhya Prasaad Semwal in LPA No.224/2013 was appointed as Office Superintendent in the appellant school and the services of both the respondents were terminated vide order dated 21.3.2010.
That order came to be passed on the ground that they were working on probation, though they were given regular grade of pay.
Nevertheless, the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') had set aside the said order with direction for reinstatement with full backwages and consequential benefits. The order of the Tribunal is questioned in the writ petition and the writ petition is still pending.
However, the learned Single Judge has rejected the request of the appellant school for grant of interim order, which order is even raised in the present appeal.
We have heard the respective counsel for the appellant as well as respondent No.l/staff. The question is as to whether the first respondent is entitled for the reinstatement or whether the termination is bad or not could be determined only in the writ petition. However, to meet the interest of justice for both the parties, we explored the possibility of interim arrangement till the writ petition is decided. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the first respondent would be reinstated and the backwages to which he is entitled will be deposited in this Court which may be put in Fixed Deposit and the interest accrued may be withdrawn by the respondent No.l once in three months and he will be reinstated with grade pay-scale which he was drawing on the date of termination.
In view of the said submission, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the appellant to reinstate the first respondent in both the appeals forthwith making him entitle to draw grade pay- scale as he was.drawing on the date of termination. The appellant school shall deposit the arrears of backwages, as ordered by the
Tribunal by 22.4.2013. The amount shall be deposited before the deposit in a nationalized bank. The respondent No.l in both the appeals is entitled to withdraw the interest once in three months.
The question relating to the termination and also withdrawal of amount deposited in the bank shall depend upon the final outcome of the writ petition.
It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant that pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal and the consequential denial of interim orders by the learned Single Judge, the respondent No.l has approached the Tribunal and obtained the order of attachment of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly submitted that he will not pursue the proceedings pending before the Tribunal in this regard. The said statement is recorded.
These appeals are accordingly disposed of.
Copy of orders be given ddsti under the signature ofthe Court
Master.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JAYANT NATH,J.
APRIL 18,2013/pmc
JUDGMENT