W.P.(C) 9390/2015. Case: Apeejay School & Anr. Vs Govt of Nct of Delhi & Anr.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C) 9390/2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. H.L. Tiku, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Yashmeet Kaur & Mr. Amit Dogra, Advs. and For Respondents: Mr. Vinod Kumar Bhati, Adv. for Mr. Devesh Singh, ASC, Mr. C.S. Parasher, Adv. with Mr. Mohit Kumar, Mr. S.K. Badal, Adv., Ms. Sumeeta Bahl, DEO Zone 23 in person |
| Judges | V. Kameswar Rao, J. |
| Issue | Delhi School Education Act, 1973 |
| Judgement Date | April 25, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
-
The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Delhi School Tribunal in Appeal No. 43 of 2012 filed by the respondent No.2 on the ground that he was not allowed to enter the premises of the petitioner No.1 School on June 23, 2012 and was informed that his services have been dispensed with. The Tribunal vide the impugned order has held that the respondent No.2 was a regular employee of the petitioner No.1 School with effect from June 6, 2006 onwards and had directed the petitioner No.1 to reinstate him with immediate effect with all consequential benefits.
-
It is the case of the petitioners herein that the respondent No.2 was appointed as Accounts Officer in the petitioner No.2 Society on June 5, 2004 for a period of one year. In accordance with the terms of appointment, the respondent No.2 could have been sent to any of the Apeejay Institutions as per the requirement. On June 06, 2005, the petitioner No.2 Society renewed the contract of employment of respondent No.2. Keeping in view, the terms of appointment, the respondent No.2 was sent on deputation to the petitioner No.1 School by the petitioner No.2 Society. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.2 Society runs the petitioner No.1 School in conformity with Rule 50(1) of the Delhi School Education Rules. The respondent no.2 was sent to the petitioner No.1 School on deputation, so therefore, the contribution towards the Provident Fund, as was required statutorily was made both by the respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 School, which were later on deposited in his Provident Fund account. Later on, vide letter dated October 8, 2005, the petitioner No.2 gave to respondent No.2 an additional duty of supervising the Accounts department of Apeejay School, Saket for one month and was required to visit the School twice a week. On November 12, 2008, the then Principal of the School had issued a certificate to the respondent No.2 in which he was stated to be the regular employee of the School with effect from June 06, 2005 in the pay scale of 6500-10500.
-
It is the stand of the petitioners that no Rules were followed in the appointment of respondent No.2 in the petitioner No.1 School. Hence, the letter whereby, he was shown to be an employee of the School is without any merit, as being contrary to the provisions of law. The petitioners have mentioned that the respondent No.2 was authorized to operate the Bank account of the petitioner No.1 School. It is averred that the respondent No.2 has committed financial irregularities, which came to the notice of the Management and when the respondent No.2 was confronted with the same, he accepted the violations and wrongs committed by him. Later on, the respondent No.2 was told verbally on June 22, 2012 to revert and report for duty at petitioner No.2 Society with effect from June 23, 2012 at Apeejay Satya House, 14 Commercial Complex, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-48 as per the directions given by the Apeejay Education Society. The respondent No.2 came to the School on June 23, 2012 and he was again informed that he had been called back by the parent body petitioner No.2 Society as he was required to report for duty at the office of the Apeejay Education Society and co-operate in the investigation. For three days, the respondent No.2 reported at petitioner No.2 office but subsequently stopped reporting and got sent a legal notice dated August 14, 2012 through his Advocate in which he has prayed that he should be allowed to join duties in the School and be given all the dues as are admissible to the regular employees. A reference is made to the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 and the reply filed by the petitioner No.1 School. It is also stated that the petitioner No.2 Society got itself impleaded as a party in the proceedings.
-
It is the submission of Mr. H.L. Tiku, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal has misdirected itself in giving the directions in the impugned order by holding that the respondent No.2 was an employee of the petitioner No.1 School. He would draw my attention to letter dated June 5, 2004 issued by the petitioner No.2 Society to contend that it was specifically mentioned...
To continue reading
Request your trial