Disposed

Kaushalya Saini v. Management of Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar Adarsh Vidyalaya and Ors.

Delhi HC19 Apr 2018W.P.(C)/10257/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought salary arrears against a school derecognised in 2015. Bench found claims vague but referred matter to the school's parent trust to process representation and pass a speaking order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Gandhi Harijan Sewak Samaj; they must consider representation and pass an order within six weeks.

Kaushalya Saini Vs Management of Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Order: April 19, 2018

¶3

- W.P.(C) 10257/2015 & C.M. 25502/2015

¶4

KAUSHALYA SAINI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhay N. Das, Advocate

¶5

Versus

¶6

MANAGEMENT OF DR BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR ADARSH VIDYALAYA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shilpa Chohan, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶9

The first round of litigation ended with the setting aside of order of 4^th October, 2007 vide which petitioner’s service as Assistant Teacher was terminated. After the Delhi School Tribunal’s order of 13^th March 2012 (Annexure P-5) directing reinstatement of petitioner , respondent- School had issued a Show Cause Notice of 30^th October, 2013 (Annexure P-11) and it is the case of petitioner that it was replied to. Petitioner had demanded payment of salary and other dues.

¶10

Petitioner claims to have made Representations on 10^th February, 2014 and 1^st April, 2014 (Annexure P-14 colly) to claim arrears of salary and other dues. According to petitioner’s counsel, respondent- School had paid salary on 17^th April, 2014 upto December, 2013 only.

¶11

W.P.(C) 10257/2015

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

Thereafter, petitioner claims to have made Representations on 15^th May, 2014 and 28^th July, 2014 (Annexure P-14 colly) seeking payment of salary and other dues from January, 2014.

¶14

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-School, it has been disclosed that the Show Cause Notice issued to petitioner was taken to its logical end and the petitioner had not participated in the inquiry but since it was intimated by the concerned University that petitioner’s degree is fake, therefore, service of petitioner was terminated vide order of 4^th August, 2015 (Annexure A/12). Petitioner’s counsel pleads ignorance about the Termination Order of 4^th August, 2015 (Annexure A/12) but maintains that the response to Paragraph No. 20 of the writ petition regarding the arrears of pay and other dues, is utterly vague.

¶15

Upon hearing and perusal of the material on record, I find that not only the prayer clause in the writ petition but even the averments made in the writ petition, are quite vague regarding the period from which petitioner’s salary was purportedly due. Even the counter affidavit filed is equally vague. There is no proper response to petitioner’s assertion about the various Representations made to claim the arrears of salary and other dues.

¶16

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent- School has been derecognised on 15^th July, 2015. It is evident from the certificate of recognition of respondent-School of 4^th August, 1993 (Annexure P-2) that respondent-School was functioning under the Gandhi Harijan Sewak, Samaj (Regd.). As per complaint of 4^th September 2013 (Annexure A/1 with the counter affidavit filed by respondent- School) , the

¶17

W.P.(C) 10257/2015

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

said Gandhi Harijan Sewak, Samaj (Regd.), which was running the school in question, is also engaged in other social and cultural activities. 6. Since petitioner’s claim for salary and other dues is in a way charge on the assets of the respondent-School, therefore, Gandhi Harijan Sewak, Samaj(Regd.) is called upon to consider petitioner’s claim for the arrears of salary etc.. If a Representation from petitioner is received by Gandhi Harijan Sewak, Samaj (Regd.) within two weeks, then it be considered and a speaking order be passed thereon by a competent person of Gandhi Harijan Sewak, Samaj(Regd.) within six weeks and its fate be made known to petitioner within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.

¶20

With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of.

¶21

Dasti .

¶22

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶23

APRIL 19, 2018 r

¶24

W.P.(C) 10257/2015

¶25

Page 3 of 3

Kaushalya Saini v. Management of Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar Adarsh Vidyalaya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushalya Saini v. Management of Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar Adarsh Vidyalaya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Kumar & Ors. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Ravin Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sher Noble Manav Vs Union of India & Anr.

Lata Lochav Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Shri Balram Yadav and Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

T.C. Jindgar Vs Rural Electrification Corporation

Mahender Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Manoj Kumar Vs Sangeet Natak Akademi and Ors.

Radha Raman Thakur Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shaiija Bahuguna Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sadakat Ali Vs Ring Midway Senior Secondary School & Ors.

Champa & Ors. Vs Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Uma Walia Vs S. Surjeet Singh Bedi, Chairman & Anr.

Deep Prakash Vs Union of India & Anr.