Disposed

Sudha Agnihotri & Ors. v. Ahsok Kumar & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Mar 2013COCP/1108/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petitioner sought enforcement of an order directing state to re-deploy school lecturers. The State arranged redeployment but claimed partial salary payment. The court upheld an arrangement where the State pays 75% directly, with the new school liable for the balance 25%, continuity of service, and July 2012 increments.

What did the court decide?

The court disposed of the contempt petition on the State's undertaking to issue directions to schools within six weeks to pay the balance salary, provide continuity of service, and grant the July 2012

Sudha Agnihotri & Ors. Vs Ahsok Kumar & Anr. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

COCP No. 1108 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

COCP No. 1108 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 1.3.2013

¶6

Smt. Sudha Agnihotri and others

¶7

.. Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

Ashok Kumar and another

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶12

Present: Mr. C. L. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Ms. Meenakshi Verma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

¶14

Rajesh Bindal, J.

¶15

The petitioners, who were working as Lecturers in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, respectively, in Hindu Girls Senior Secondary School, Kalka, District Panchkula, have filed the present petition with a grievance that the order passed by this court on 16.2.2012 in CWP No. 14210 of 2010, has not been complied with.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that vide the aforesaid order, the respondent-State was directed to re-deploy the petitioners in some other schools within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Till such time, they were not deployed, the petitioners were to be paid salaries by the respondent-School for which the management was responsible and the State was directed to provide grant-in-aid as per law. On re-deployment, the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of continuity of service. The grievance is that the petitioners have been paid full salary upto 10.4.2012 by the respondentschool. Petitioner no. 1 was permitted to join in DAV Senior Secondary School, Yamuna Nagar, on 6.10.2012. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were permitted to join on 26.10.2012 in SMB Geeta Senior Secondary School, Kurukshetra and TIT Senior Secondary School, Bhiwani, respectively.

¶17

COCP No. 1108 of 2012

¶18

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that though 75% of the salary from 10.4.2012 till the date the petitioners were permitted to join duty in the new schools have been paid by the State, however, the balance 25% yet to be paid. The grievance is also that continuity of service, as was directed, was not granted by the new school. The petitioners were entitled to annual increment in July, 2012, but the same has not been paid.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1- School submitted that a specific direction was given to the State in the order passed by this court on 16.2.2012 in the writ petition filed by the petitioners that redeployment orders shall be issued within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The State was represented in the aforesaid case. Copy of the order passed by this court was supplied by respondent no. 1 in the office of Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, on 28.2.2012. The salaries to the petitioners have been paid till 10.4.2012 in terms of the directions issued by this court. The petitioners were relieved on 7.4.2012 as there was Sunday on 8.4.2012 and from 9.4.2012 the school was closed for vacation after the annual examination. Though the salaries were paid upto 10.4.2012 but for the period subsequent thereto, the respondentSchool is not liable as there was delay on the part of the State to comply the directions issued by this court.

¶21

Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 further submitted that as regards increment due to the petitioners in July 2012 is concerned, as they were not in service of the respondent-school on that date, respondent no. 1 is not liable to pay that increment. The continuity of service is to be granted by the school where they have now been posted.

¶22

Learned counsel for respondent no. 2, on instructions from Vinod Sharma, Section Officer, office of Secondary Education, Haryana, submitted that the petitioners have been paid 75% of the salary by the State directly. For the balance 25%, the school, where the petitioners have now been deployed, will be liable. Necessary letter to that effect shall be issued to the concerned school. Respondent no. 2 will also direct the school to provide continuity of service and increment due to the petitioners in July

¶23

COCP No. 1108 of 2012

¶24

¶25

2012, which is also the responsibility of the new school where the petitioners have now joined.

¶26

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fair stand taken by learned counsel for respondent no. 2, the present contempt petition is disposed of in terms thereof. It is expected that necessary directions, as stated above, will be issued to the concerned schools, within a period of six weeks on receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶27

1.3.2013 vs

¶28

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

Sudha Agnihotri & Ors. v. Ahsok Kumar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudha Agnihotri & Ors. v. Ahsok Kumar & Anr.

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

Ravi Kumar and Ors. Vs Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

Amar Singh Vs Bikram Singh

Phool Kaur Vs Ved Parkash, Chief Executive Officer

N.V Builders Vs Vijay N. Zade & Anr.

Vikas Sachdeva Vs Vijay N. Zade & Anr.

Satnam Singh Vs Vijay N. Zade & Anr.