Full Text
Translation output
r $-5 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 2855/2017
NAJMA RAZA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Mathur, Advocate
W.P.(C) 2855/2017
NAJMA RAZA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Mathur, Advocate
VERSUS
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD, with Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee, Advocate for R-1 & R-4
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD, with Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee, Advocate for R-1 & R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
04.08.2017
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
04.08.2017
CM APPL. 12492/2017 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to alljust exceptions.
Applicationstands disposedof.
Exemption allowed, subject to alljust exceptions.
Applicationstands disposedof.
W.P.(C) 2855/2017 8l CM APPL. 12491/2017 (Stay)
Issue notice. Counsel for respondents No.l and 4 accepts notice. Since respondents No.2 and 3 are functioning under the
Directorate of Education, we dispense with serviceuponthem.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 20.11.2015 and
20.08.2016 passed in Original Application (O.A.) No.2281/2014 and
Review Application No.170/2016 in the aforesaid O.A. The Central
Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal'), Principal Bench, New Delhi, 2017:DHC:8262-DB dismissed the O.A. with costs of Rs.25,000/- and also dismissed the
Review Application preferredby the petitioner.
The facts which emerge from the record are that the petitioner who is a Trained Graduate Teacher ('TGT') in the Directorate of
Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, was served with a relieving order dated 09J0.2012 relieving her from President Estate-SV (Dr. Rajinder Prasad)-2026001 with immediate effect. The relieving order was served on the petitioner on 10.10.2012. The said relieving order
^ refers to the Transfer Order No.DE.3(2)/E-III/TR/2012, Transfer ID:
20122354 dated 05.10.2012 which also indicates that the petitioner is relieved with immediate,effect to join duties at Darya Ganj, Pataudi
House-GGSSS-2127020. Despite the said relieving order being served upon the petitioner she did not jointhe duties atthe transferred post. Accordingly, she was issued a Show Cause Notice on
31.01.2013. She thereafter joined the transferred post on 28.04.2013.
The case of the petitioner is that she did report at the transferred post, however, she was not permitted to join since there was no u communication/transfer order at the transferred school. Accordingly, she preferred the O.A. No.3460/2012. In the saidO.A. on29.10.2012, the Tribunal directed the respondents to serve a copy of the transfer order upon her. It was further directed that if and when the petitioner reports before the Principal of Darya Ganj, Pataudi House-GGSSS-
2127020, the petitioner should be taken on duty.
According to the petitioner, after the filing of the present O.A., the Show Cause Notice has been disposed of, by directing that the period of petitioner's absence be treated as Extra Ordinary Leave
/ (EOL).
The grievance of the petitioner is that she was not responsible for remaining on leave and she had to remain on leave since she was not.permitted to join at the transferred post.
The petitioner is represented through her husband in the Court.
He states that since the petitioner did not work between 01.10.2012 and 28.04.2013, the petitioner is not claiming any salary for the said period. He further submits that in these circumstances there was no justification for imposition of costs by the Tribunal.
Having perused the impugned order and the documents placed on record and considered the submissions advanced by the petitioner, we are of the view that the imposition of costs on the petitioner was not justified as we find that after the direction given by the Tribunal on 29.10.2012 in her O.A., there may have been some justification on the part of the Petitioner to wait for a copy of the transfer order.
Accordingly, we set aside the costs imposed upon the petitioner by the Tribunal. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
^' All pending applications also stand disposed of.
VIPIN SANGHI, J REKHA J AUGUST 04, 2017
Issue notice. Counsel for respondents No.l and 4 accepts notice. Since respondents No.2 and 3 are functioning under the
Directorate of Education, we dispense with serviceuponthem.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 20.11.2015 and
20.08.2016 passed in Original Application (O.A.) No.2281/2014 and
Review Application No.170/2016 in the aforesaid O.A. The Central
Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal'), Principal Bench, New Delhi, 2017:DHC:8262-DB dismissed the O.A. with costs of Rs.25,000/- and also dismissed the
Review Application preferredby the petitioner.
The facts which emerge from the record are that the petitioner who is a Trained Graduate Teacher ('TGT') in the Directorate of
Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, was served with a relieving order dated 09J0.2012 relieving her from President Estate-SV (Dr. Rajinder Prasad)-2026001 with immediate effect. The relieving order was served on the petitioner on 10.10.2012. The said relieving order
^ refers to the Transfer Order No.DE.3(2)/E-III/TR/2012, Transfer ID:
20122354 dated 05.10.2012 which also indicates that the petitioner is relieved with immediate,effect to join duties at Darya Ganj, Pataudi
House-GGSSS-2127020. Despite the said relieving order being served upon the petitioner she did not jointhe duties atthe transferred post. Accordingly, she was issued a Show Cause Notice on
31.01.2013. She thereafter joined the transferred post on 28.04.2013.
The case of the petitioner is that she did report at the transferred post, however, she was not permitted to join since there was no u communication/transfer order at the transferred school. Accordingly, she preferred the O.A. No.3460/2012. In the saidO.A. on29.10.2012, the Tribunal directed the respondents to serve a copy of the transfer order upon her. It was further directed that if and when the petitioner reports before the Principal of Darya Ganj, Pataudi House-GGSSS-
2127020, the petitioner should be taken on duty.
According to the petitioner, after the filing of the present O.A., the Show Cause Notice has been disposed of, by directing that the period of petitioner's absence be treated as Extra Ordinary Leave
/ (EOL).
The grievance of the petitioner is that she was not responsible for remaining on leave and she had to remain on leave since she was not.permitted to join at the transferred post.
The petitioner is represented through her husband in the Court.
He states that since the petitioner did not work between 01.10.2012 and 28.04.2013, the petitioner is not claiming any salary for the said period. He further submits that in these circumstances there was no justification for imposition of costs by the Tribunal.
Having perused the impugned order and the documents placed on record and considered the submissions advanced by the petitioner, we are of the view that the imposition of costs on the petitioner was not justified as we find that after the direction given by the Tribunal on 29.10.2012 in her O.A., there may have been some justification on the part of the Petitioner to wait for a copy of the transfer order.
Accordingly, we set aside the costs imposed upon the petitioner by the Tribunal. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
^' All pending applications also stand disposed of.
VIPIN SANGHI, J REKHA J AUGUST 04, 2017
JUDGMENT