The petitioner school challenged the Director of Education's report on earned leave encashments for former employees. The Court examined the calculations and the school's records, finding the petitioner failed to substantiate claims of incorrect leave allowances.
Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
% 8th December, 2016
DOON PUBLIC SCHOOL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manoj V. George and Ms. Shilpa George, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Santosh Kr. Tripathi, ASC and Mr. Rizwan, Advocate for R-1 and 2.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
Page 1 of 7
W.P. (C) No. 4777/2016
no.1 in W.P. (C) 6868/2012, was not giving the necessary monetary benefits payable to these employees/teachers of the petitioner/school. W.P. (C) 6868/2012 was disposed of by this Court by the judgment dated 13.11.2013
and the operative portion of the judgment is contained in paras 7 to 10 and which paras read as under:-
“7. Accordingly, let petitioners now file detailed representations to the Director of Education/respondent no.3 within a period of four weeks from today giving details under different heads and for different periods stating what are the amounts which are due to the petitioners in terms of prayer clauses made in this writ petition. A copy of these representations will be given to the respondent no.1/school through its counsel who appears in this Court. School will give response to these representations and calculation sheets of the petitioners to the Director of Education within a period of four weeks and advance copy of which will be given to the petitioners through their counsel in this Court. The Director of Education will thereafter nominate an appropriate officer to go into the accounting and the amounts due. The officer appointed by the Director of Education should complete the exercise within a period of four months from today. On the amounts which would become due to the petitioners, if the officer as appointed by the Director of Education so finds that amounts are due, then, on such amounts under all heads, petitioners will be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum simple after 30 days from the dates of their resignations/superannuation given to the respondent no.1/school. Amounts which are calculated, if found due and payable to the petitioners, in terms of the specific order to be passed by the officer appointed by the Director of Education, will be paid to the petitioners by the respondent no.1-school within a period of six months from today, failing which interest will thereafter become payable @ 12% per annum simple.
Page 2 of 7
W.P. (C) No. 4777/2016
dated 13.11.2013 in W.P. (C) 6868/2012, and therefore, the matter was carried in appeal in LPA 21/2014. In this LPA 21/2014, the petitioner/school was directed to file the necessary record before the Director of Education vide order of the Division Bench dated 13.11.2014 and this order reads as under:-
“We are informed that the respondent nos.1 to 5 have made available the details of the period with regard to which they are claiming gratuity to the Deputy Director, Education, Delhi Administration. It is submitted by Ms. Maheshwari, learned counsel for respondent nos.6 to 8 that the service records of these respondents from the school are yet to be submitted.
We therefore, direct that the appellants shall cause to be produced the service records of the respondent nos.1 to 5 before the LPA 21/2014 Deputy Director, Education, Delhi Administration for his scrutiny on the 18th of November 2014 at 12:00 noon. In case, the photocopy of any extract is deemed necessary by Deputy Director, Education, Delhi Administration, the same shall be submitted by the appellants to him. However, it is made clear that these directions are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
List on 13th January, 2015 for awaiting the repot of Deputy Director, Education, Delhi Administration.”
Division Bench dated 13.11.2014 in LPA 21/2014 filed the necessary records before the Director of Education and the nominee of the Director of
Page 3 of 7
W.P. (C) No. 4777/2016
Education consequently filed its report dated 12.1.2015, and which would be an order pursuant to the directions contained in the judgment dated 13.11.2013 in W.P. (C) 6868/2012. I am not reproducing the affidavit/order/calculations of the concerned officer of the Director of Education filed before the Division Bench in LPA no. 21/2014 because the same with its calculations is extremely lengthy, however, it is noted that this report-cum-affidavit is accompanied by calculations given by the nominee of the Director of Education with respect to each of the petitioners in W.P. (C) 6868/2012, and who are respondent nos. 3 to 7 herein. The nominee of
the Director of Education by giving appropriate calculations has held as to how each of the respondent nos. 3 to 7 herein are entitled to encashment of specific days of earned leaves.
ultimately disposed of as not pressed with the liberty to approach the learned Single Judge in the writ court with respect to issue of Gratuity calculations, and which is not the subject matter of the writ petition inasmuch as the only issue argued by the petitioner before this Court is as regards the wrong calculations of the nominee of the Director of Education as per the report dated 12.1.2015 submitted before the Division Bench is
Page 4 of 7
W.P. (C) No. 4777/2016
that the nominee of the Director of Education has wrongly calculated the earned leaves calculations with respect to respondent nos. 3 to 7 herein.
Page 5 of 7
W.P. (C) No. 4777/2016
Page 6 of 7
W.P. (C) No. 4777/2016
not been able to substantiate the arguments as to why the leaves taken qua each of the respondent nos. 3 to 7 as per the calculations of the nominee of the Director of Education are wrong. This I am saying so because if the number of leaves availed of by each of the employees as taken by the nominee of the Director of Education for giving his report dated 12.1.2015 were incorrect then the petitioner would have to show by its record whether it be leave applications or other counter signatures of the respondent nos.3
to 7/employees in the school record as regards earned leaves, and which should show more number of earned leaves then as shown in the calculations of the nominee of the Director of Education, but that has not been done by the petitioner. The argument urged on behalf of the petitioner that each of the respondent nos. 3 to 7 have signed the school record every year and thus the order dated 12.1.2015 needs to be set aside is an incorrect argument inasmuch as even if the employees have signed the school record every year, till such record shows as to how the leaves are those as argued
by the petitioner, and which is not substantiated by the record, the order dated 12.1.2015 cannot be said to be illegal or baseless.
DECEMBER 08, 2016/ ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Page 7 of 7
W.P. (C) No. 4777/2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the report-cum-order of the Director of Education dated 12.1.2015 regarding earned leave encashment calculations was liable to be set aside.
Whether the petitioner successfully substantiated that the nominee of the Director of Education wrongly calculated the earned leaves taken by the employees.
DOON PUBLIC SCHOOL
STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
