Single judge dismissed writ petition seeking regularization, salary arrears, and compensation against DAV Group entities. Court held it lacked territorial jurisdiction as petitioner's last employment was in Haryana and was devised as a contractual employee, and noted the Managing Committee was not a school employer in Delhi.
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**
% 10th April, 2017
SUGAN SINGH
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajinder Kumar Uppal, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Neha Rastogi and Mr. Animesh Rastogi, Advs. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
India petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-
“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to:-
i) Admit the Writ Petition. ii) Direct the Respondent to issue Transfer Order, and take him on duty, and pay salary and arrears with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.
iii) Direct the respondents to pay the petitioner compensation for providing him mental tension and mental torture for their illegal acts.”
no.3/D.A.V.I.M NH-3, N.I.T. Faridabad, Haryana. Petitioner claims that he
Page 1 of 8
W.P.(C) No. 3013/2017
has worked with the DAV Group from 1988. Petitioner was appointed in Jaipur as a clerk-cum-cashier. Petitioner was thereafter transferred to Delhi as an employee of respondent no.2/DAV College Managing Committee, Chitra Gupta Road, New Delhi. Thereafter the petitioner had worked with the respondent no.3 as an Estate Officer. Petitioner pleads that since he has worked with DAV group since 1988 hence the petitioner should be regularized in his services. Petitioner also seeks the relief that with respect to the break in service from February 1992 till he joined the respondent no.3 as an Estate Officer, for such period, he be paid arrears of salary. Petitioner also seeks compensation for alleged mental tension and torture caused to the petitioner by the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Page 2 of 8
W.P.(C) No. 3013/2017
respondent no.2. Detailed reasons are given hereinafter for dismissing of this writ petition on account of the aforesaid three reasons.
cum-cashier with the DAV Centenary Public School at Jaipur in Rajasthan and he was confirmed at the said post w.e.f 2.7.1988. Petitioner then pleads that he was transferred from the school at Jaipur to DAV College Managing Committee, Chitra Gupta Road, New Delhi as per the letter dated 22.11.1990 and that petitioner joined his services with the respondent no. 2 /DAV College Managing Committee on 2.2.1991. Petitioner then pleads that as per an oral order petitioner was promoted to the post of Estate Officer and told to join the respondent no.3 at Faridabad and where he joined w.e.f 1.6.1992. Petitioner then pleads that he has been regularly sending representations for his regularization but the same have not been considered and also that certain arrears of salary have not been paid.
Page 3 of 8
W.P.(C) No. 3013/2017
Page 4 of 8
W.P.(C) No. 3013/2017
the petitioner was lastly employed with the respondent no.3 at Faridabad in Haryana.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. etc. etc., AIR 2011 (Delhi) 174 and the relevant para of which judgment reads as under:-
“33. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are inclined to modify the findings and conclusions of the Full Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) and proceed to state our conclusions in seriatim as follows:
(a) The finding recorded by the Full Bench that the sole cause of action emerges at the place or location where the tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority is situate and the said High Court (i.e., Delhi High Court) cannot decline to entertain the writ petition as that would amount to failure of the duty of the Court cannot be accepted inasmuch as such a finding is totally based on the situs of the tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority totally ignoring the concept of forum conveniens.
(b) Even if a miniscule part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court, a writ petition would be maintainable before this Court, however, the cause of action has to be understood as per the ratio laid down in the case of Alchemist Ltd . (supra)
(c) An order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action to make the writ petition maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate authority is situated. Yet, the same may not be the singular factor to compel the High Court to decide the matter on merits. The High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.
Page 5 of 8
W.P.(C) No. 3013/2017
(d) The conclusion that where the appellate or revisional authority is located constitutes the place of forum conveniens as stated in absolute terms by the Full Bench is not correct as it will vary from case to case and depend upon the lis in question.
(e) The finding that the court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 if only the jurisdiction is invoked in a malafide manner is too restricted / constricted as the exercise of power under Article 226 being discretionary cannot be limited or restricted to the ground of mala fide alone. (f) While entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of forum conveniens and the nature of cause of action are required to be scrutinized by the High Court depending upon the factual matrix of each case in view of what has been stated in Ambica Industries (supra) and Adani Exports Ltd. (supra)
(g) The conclusion of the earlier decision of the Full Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) “that since the original order merges into the appellate order, the place where the appellate authority is located is also forum conveniens” is not correct.
(h) Any decision of this Court contrary to the conclusions enumerated hereinabove stands overruled.” (underlining added)
was lastly employed by respondent no.3 as a contractual appointee and
Page 6 of 8
W.P.(C) No. 3013/2017
which contractual appointment came to an end on 9.6.2015. Petitioner therefore if he seeks regularization will have to approach the concerned court which has jurisdiction over the respondent no.3 at Faridabad in Haryana. Petitioner therefore cannot approach this Court at Delhi. Also, respondent no.2 is only a Managing Committee and since petitioner as per his own admission is only an employee of a Managing Committee and not an employee of a school, Delhi School Education Act and Rules will not apply, and therefore, this is not an education matter, and therefore this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and petitioner therefore will have to file a suit, assuming petitioner has a valid cause of action, as against the respondent no.2. Though prima facie, the reliefs claimed by the petitioner appeared to be time barred, I do not comment on the same finally one way or the other inasmuch as the writ petition is being dismissed on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction or writ petition being not maintainable against the respondent no.2 or in any case this Court being the Court of forum non-conveniens.
Page 7 of 8
W.P.(C) No. 3013/2017
hence a writ petition will not lie, and the petitioner will have to approach a civil court for seeking reliefs, against the respondent no.2 of course in accordance with law.
observations.
APRIL 10, 2017 ib
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Page 8 of 8
W.P.(C) No. 3013/2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition by an employee seeking regularization against employers located partly in Delhi and Haryana.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable against a private Managing Committee of a school falling under the Delhi School Education Act.
Whether the doctrine of forum conveniens precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction when the cause of action accrued primarily outside Delhi.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. etc. etc. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. etc. etc., AIR 2011 (Delhi) 174Referred¶39
SUGAN SINGH
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
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
