Disposed

Andhra Education Society v. Director of Education & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Feb 2025W.P.(C)/6542/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Where the employee whose appeal succeeded before the Delhi School Tribunal consented to accept the original order of compulsory retirement, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order dated 30.11.2015 and restored the School's order dated 18.01.2012. Entitlements consequent on compulsory retirement were directed to be paid within three months without interest; the employee may dispute the computation by representation to the School and Directorate of Education, with rights and remedies reserved.

What the court decided

AI extract

Andhra Education Society Vs Director of Education… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~73

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 6542/2016 ANDHRA EDUCATION SOCIETY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Mr. Ravi Kant, Mr. Aakash & Ms. Nidhi, Advocates. versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC, GNCTD with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam & Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates. Mr. Shubham Bahl, Mr. Nikhil Pawar & Ms. Kritika Matta, Advocates for R-3.

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶5

O R D E R % 17.02.2025

¶6

CM APPL. 9553/2025 ( application on behalf of the respondent No. 3 for early hearing of the writ petition )

¶7

Respondent No. 3 has filed this application for early hearing of the writ petition.

¶8

Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 are present. Having regard to the contents of the application and with the consent of the learned counsel for all the parties, the application is allowed, and the writ petition is taken on board.

¶9

W.P.(C) 6542/2016

¶10

Page 1 of 4

¶11

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 18:14:08

¶12

W.P.(C) 6542/2016

¶13

The petitioner – School assails an order dated 30.11.2015, by which the Delhi School Tribunal [“Tribunal”] has allowed the appeal of respondent No. 3 herein, against an order dated 18.01.2012, by which the School imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement upon him. The Tribunal directed reinstatement of respondent No. 3, with liberty to the petitioner to hold a fresh inquiry. The question of back wages was referred to the petitioner for a decision, in accordance with law.

¶14

During the pendency of writ petition, it has been stated by Mr. Shubham Bahl, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 – which is reiterated in the application for early hearing – that respondent No. 3 has reconsidered the entire issue and is willing to accept the order of compulsory retirement, subject to release of his entitlements within a specified time period. The submissions of the parties to this effect are recorded in the orders dated 27.03.2024 and 09.05.2024. The School was granted an opportunity to forward the proposal to the Directorate of Education [“DoE”] since the petitioner school is an aided school. By order dated 07.11.2024, time was granted to DoE to apprise the Court of its decision.

¶15

Although no formal decision of DoE has been placed on record, I am of the view that it is unnecessary to await a fresh decision by DoE. The genesis of this litigation is the challenge by respondent No.3, to the order dated 18.01.2012. The effect of the submission now made on his behalf is that his challenge is not pressed, and the original order dated 18.01.2012, revives.

¶16

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the writ petition

Page 2 of 4

W.P.(C) 6542/2016

may be disposed of, by setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 30.11.2015, and restoring the order of the School dated 18.01.2012, with the consequential direction that the entitlements of the respondent No. 3, consequent upon his compulsory retirement in terms of the said order, be paid to him within the period of three months from today.

¶21

The order of this Court dated 27.03.2024 records the submission of the respondent No. 3 that his entitlement should be released “ with reasonable interest ”. However, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, instructed by respondent No. 3, who is personally present in Court, does not press for payment of interest. 6. It is made clear that the amounts to be paid to respondent No. 3 are those amounts to which he would have been entitled, had he accepted the order of compulsory retirement when it was passed. 7. As far as the computation is concerned, the School is directed to supply the computation of the amount being paid to respondent No. 3, alongwith the remittance of the payment. In the event, respondent No. 3 disputes the computation, he may make a representation to the School and DoE within two weeks thereafter. If any further amount is found payable, payment of the said amount may be made within four weeks thereafter. If the representation of respondent No. 3 is not accepted, a reasoned order be communicated to him, within the same period. The rights and remedies of the parties on the question of computation remain reserved. 8. Mr. Bhaskar states that the petitioner–School does not appear to have the current address and contact details of respondent No. 3. Those will be communicated by Mr. Bahl to learned counsel for School and DoE within one week from today. Correspondence between the School

Page 3 of 4

W.P.(C) 6542/2016

and respondent No. 3 may also be marked to their respective counsel, for facilitation of communication.

¶26

The writ petition is disposed of with these directions.

¶27

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶28

FEBRUARY 17, 2025 ‘pv’/kb/

¶29

W.P.(C) 6542/2016

¶30

Page 4 of 4

¶31

Andhra Education Society v. Director of Education & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Andhra Education Society v. Director of Education & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurpreet Singh Vs the Commissioner, MCD & Ors.

Sanjit Chand Paswan Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University

Anita Singh Vs Union Bank of India & Anr.

Gayatri Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. Vs Dr. Prabhu Nath Singh and Anr.

Dharambir Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Panaesha Capital Pvt. Ltd. through Sandeep Phogat & Anr. Vs Danish Azim Qureshi

Sh. Amit Bansal & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Sanjit Chand Paswan Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University

Sumer Singh Dhayal and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Prabodh Krishna Shukla Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited through Its Chief General Manager Ic Rs Northern Region & Anr.

Guru Darshan Mahendru Vs Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.

Ratish Kumar Vs Nhpc Limited and Anr.

Solanki Ismailkhan Nasirkhan & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.