2018 - Delhi High Court - After 30 years of litigation, dismissed employee gets justice – Dismissal order set aside and direction to pay full back wages up to the date of superannuation – DTC dismissed its conductor in the year 1988 on the alleged charge of participation in an illegal strike

On 19 September 2018, Hon’ble Delhi High Court declared that the dismissal of Sh. Sho Ram (Conductor) from service was illegal and directed the Delhi Transport Corporation (D.T.C.) to pay full wages, including retiral dues, to Sh. Sho Ram up to the date of his superannuation.

In the year 1988, Sh. Sho Ram was dismissed from service on the alleged charge of participation in an illegal strike. Sh. Sho Ram was working as a conductor and contended that he never participated in the strike.

In the year 1988, Sh. Sho Ram raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. On 19 December 2011, the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal held that the workman was not entitled to any relief. Being aggrieved by the Award dated 19 December 2011, as passed by the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal, the workman filed a writ petition [W.P.(C) 2081/2012]  before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. It may be noted that on 31st January, 2012 Sh. Sho Ram attained the age of superannuation.

Anuj Aggarwal, & Ashutosh Dixit, Advocates, counsel of Sh. Sho Ram (workman) contended that Sh. Sho Ram never participated in the strike and the termination of service of Sh. Sho Ram was in violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, Delhi High Court, accepted the submissions made by the counsels of Sh. Sho Ram and declared that the dismissal of Sh. Sho Ram from service was illegal. The Hon’ble Court directed the D.T.C. to pay full salary to Sh. Sho Ram up to the date of his illegal dismissal from service. The Hon’ble Court further directed the D.T.C. to pay all the retiral dues to Sh. Sho Ram within a period of 4 weeks.

http://advocateanujaggarwal.com/admin/img/Finalist/2018092715380230622018%20HC%20-%20Sho%20Ram%20vs.%20DTC.pdf

CAT - Provisionally accept the E-Dossier of the shortlisted candidates

2018 – Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.) – Appointment on the post of Special Educator (Primary), M.C.D. (Post Code 15/17) – CAT, vide Order dated 25 September 2018, directed the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (D.S.S.S.B.) to provisionally accept the E-Dossier of the shortlisted candidates – The shortlisted candidates, who were applicants in the Original Application [O. A. No. 3647/2018], possessed all the requisite qualifications except Central Teacher Eligibility Test (TEST) qualification

http://advocateanujaggarwal.com/admin/img/Finalist/2018092715380213772018%20-%20CAT%20-%20E%20dossier.pdf

Delhi High Court – Subsistence Allowance – Rule 116, Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 - Direction to a private unaided unrecognized school to pay subsistence allowance to its teacher – Held, “subsistence allowance in law is a natural entitlement of every employee subject to the ignominy of suspension.” [Simmi Kathpal vs. Hanuman Mandir Public School and Ors; W.P. (C) 6840/2017; Date of decision: 28th August, 2018]

On 28 August 2018, Hon’ble Delhi High Court directed a private unaided unrecognized school to pay subsistence allowance to its teacher. The teacher was kept under suspension for more than 2 years but was not paid any money on account of subsistence allowance.

Anuj Aggarwal, Ashutosh Dixit and Kshitij Arora, Advocates, appearing for the petitioner/teacher, argued that it is a statutory duty of school, including unrecognized school, to pay subsistence allowance to its teacher who is suspended from service. Accepting the submissions, Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar directed the school to pay subsistence allowance to the teacher. It was, inter alia, noted by the Hon’ble Court as under:-

“The petitioner has, in fact, had to run from pillar to post, for the past three years, in order to ensure payment of subsistence allowance to her which, in law, is a natural entitlement of every employee subject to the ignominy of suspension. Subsistence allowance, it has to be noted, is essentially intended to tide the employee over the period of suspension, so that, she or he is able to prosecute the proceedings against her, or him and is not left with no means of sustenance, being “out”, so to speak, of a job.”

The contention of the respondent/school that writ petition is not maintainable against a private school was also rejected.

http://advocateanujaggarwal.com/admin/img/Finalist/2018090315359889522018%20Del%20Single%20-%20SIMMI%20KATHPAL.pdf