A probationer can resign without serving 3 months’ notice period and any amount paid by the employee is liable to be refunded by the employer – Delhi High Court (DB)

08 September 2022

Delhi High Court (DB)

 

A probationer can resign without serving 3 months’ notice period and any amount paid by the employee is liable to be refunded by the employer – Delhi High Court (DB)

 

On 13.12.2019, Mr. Paras Khuttan was appointed as Manager (Law), on probation basis, in GAIL India Ltd.

 

On 15.01.2020, Paras resigned from service and requested for relieving on 22.01.2020 since, as a probationer, he was not required to serve any notice period.

 

GAIL India Ltd., however, insisted that Paras is required to serve 3 months’ notice period and only thereafter his resignation will be accepted by GAIL India Ltd.

 

Having no option, Paras served GAIL India Ltd. for 1 month and paid 2 months salary in lieu of remaining notice period.

 

GAIL India Ltd. thereafter accepted the resignation letter and Paras was finally relieved from service on 17.02.2020.

 

Thereafter, Paras filed a writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 4617/2020] before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court thereby seeking refund of his 2 months salary which he was forced to pay to GAIL India Ltd. at the time of resignation. The said writ petition was, however, dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2021 by the Delhi High Court.

 

Being aggrieved by the Order dated 10.02.2021, passed by the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Paras filed a Letters Patent Appeal [LPA 285/2021] before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

 

Vide Order dated 08.09.2022, the LPA was allowed and GAIL India Ltd. was directed to refund 2-month salary to Paras. The directive paragraphs of the Order dated 08.09.2022 are reproduced below for ready reference: -

 

“42. The present case is an open and shut case of a probationer whose services could have been terminated at any point of time and the probationer was well within the right to resign at any point of time as he was not an employee and he was not covered under Clause 8.1 of the Regulations governing the field. This Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The Petitioner is entitled for refund of the amount deposited by him in lieu of notice period and the same be done positively within a period of 3 months from the receipt of a copy of this Order.

 

43. With the aforesaid directions, the LPA stands allowed. No orders as to costs.”

 

[Paras Khuttan Versus GAIL INDIA LTD & ANR., LPA 285/2021, decided on 08 September 2022]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022091216629853252022%20Del%20DB%20-%20Paras%20Khuttan.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

 

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

What are the minimum qualifying marks for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidates for appointment on the post of TGT (Urdu) Female (Post Code: 53/21) in DOE? – Delhi High Court asks Delhi Government

07 September 2022

Delhi High Court (DB)

 

What are the minimum qualifying marks for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidates for appointment on the post of TGT (Urdu) Female (Post Code: 53/21) in DOE? – Delhi High Court asks Delhi Government

 

Ms. Muslima Parveen appeared in the recruitment process for appointment on the post of TGT (Urdu) Female (Post Code: 53/21) in DOE, GNCTD. She obtained 39.39/100 marks in Section A and 62.62/100 marks in Section B i.e., total 102.01/200 marks. She was not shortlisted for uploading the e-dossier by DSSSB. Being aggrieved, Muslima filed an Original Application (O.A. No. 1241/2022) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi. Vide Order dated 13.07.2022, CAT dismissed the Original Application.

 

Being aggrieved by the Order passed by the CAT, Muslima filed a writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 12996/2022] before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

 

Muslima, in her petition, submitted that the cut off marks stipulated by DSSSB for EWS candidates are 108.33 marks, whereas for UR candidates is 83.84 marks, which by itself is illogical, unjustified and amounts to no reservation for the EWS candidates. She also submitted that there is no justification as to how she was awarded with 39.39 marks when each question was of 1 mark.

 

Muslima also contended that the condition that a candidate must qualify ‘Section A’ and ‘Section B’ separately is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India and because of this arbitrary condition, 90% vacancies of TGT (Urdu) Female (Post Code: 53/21) in DOE have remained unfilled. Total 571 vacancies were advertised by DSSSB vide Advertisement dated 27.05.2021, out of which only 57 candidates obtained marks equal to, or above than, the minimum qualifying marks stipulated by DSSSB. It may be noted that total sanctioned posts of TGT (Urdu) Female in DOE are 1,032 posts, out of which 917 posts are lying vacant. That is, in other words, more than 85% vacancies are lying vacant for last several years and DSSSB and DOE, despite advertisements, have not been able to fill these vacancies. Unfilled vacancies directly violate the right to education of children who wants to study Urdu language as a subject.

 

Keeping in view the acute shortage of qualified Urdu teachers, Delhi Minorities Commission also sought a reply from the DSSSB. Consequently, DSSSB vide letter dated 15.07.2022 informed the Delhi Minorities Commission that DSSSB has taken a decision w.r.t. TGT (Urdu), TGT (Punjabi) and TGT (Sanskrit) posts that “the mandatory minimum qualifying marks will be applicable only in Section B, which is domain subject specific. There will not be any minimum qualifying marks in Section A. However, aggregate marks of both Section A & Section B will be reckoned for preparing the final merit list. This change in policy will be applicable only in r/o vacancies of posts to be notified by DSSSB in future.”

 

Muslima submitted that the aforesaid decision of DSSSB should not be restricted to the future vacancies but should also be applied to the vacancies advertised in the year 2021.

 

Considering the submissions made by the petitioner, Delhi High Court issued notice to the Government of NCT of Delhi and directed the Government to file reply within 4 weeks. Directive paragraphs of the Order dated 07.09.2022 are reproduced below for ready reference: -

“1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the information, there is no minimum qualifying marks prescribed for the Economically Weaker Section (‘EWS’) category of candidates in Section A and Section B. He further submits that though each question bore one mark, surprisingly the petitioner has been awarded with 39.39 % in Section A.

3. Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

4. List on 25.11.2022.

5. Respondent shall also specify as to whether, there is any prescribed minimum qualifying marks in Section A for EWS category, and further they shall explain as to how petitioner was awarded with 39.39 % marks when each question had one mark allotted to it.”

 

[Muslima Parveen Vs. DSSSB & Anr., WP No. 12996/2022, Date of order = 07.09.2022, next date of hearing = 25.11.2022]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022091116628644002022%20Del%20DB%20-%20MUSLIMA%20PARVEEN.pdf

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

B.Ed. (Special Education) is equivalent to B.Ed., and B.Ed. (Special Education) is a valid qualification for appointment on the post of TGT (Hindi) – Held, Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

16 August 2022

Central Administrative Tribunal

 

B.Ed. (Special Education) is equivalent to B.Ed., and B.Ed. (Special Education) is a valid qualification for appointment on the post of TGT (Hindi) – Held, Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

 

Candidature of Ms. Uma Rani was rejected by the DSSSB on the ground that Ms. Uma Rani has done B.Ed. (Special Education) whereas the requisite qualification for appointment on the post TGT (Hindi) in DOE, GNCTD is B.Ed.

 

Being aggrieved by rejection of her candidature, Ms. Uma Rani filed an Original Application [OA No. 2183/2015] before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

 

Vide Order dated 16.08.2022, the Original Application was allowed. Directive paragraphs of the Order dated 16.08.2022 read as under: -

 

“11. Against the aforesaid background and the categorical directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, we are surprised to know that the respondents have not taken any steps to either amend the necessary rules or even issue administrative orders declaring equivalence of B.Ed Special Education with B.Ed.

 

12. We have no cause to deviate from the principle and law already laid down by the Hon'ble High Court. Moreover, even our reading of the degree held by the applicant of B.Ed Special Education means that the term ‘B.Ed’ gets subsumed in the B.Ed Special Education and we cannot hold the validity of the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the applicant.

 

13. Accordingly, the present Original Application is allowed. The impugned result notice dated 19.03.2015 bearing no. F.1 (213)/CC-II/DSSSB/2012/ qua the applicant is set-aside.

 

14. The respondents are further directed that in the event of the applicant having been successful in the competitive exam and given appointment pursuant to this Order, she shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, including seniority at par with the candidates selected pursuant to the notification dated 21.05.2014 (Annexure A-9). However, such consequential benefits shall be only on notional basis. There shall be no order as to costs.”

 

[Ms. Uma Rani Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, OA No. 2183/2015, Decided on 16.08.2022, Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi]

 

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022082716616062292022%20CAT%20-%20Ms.Uma%20Rani.pdf

 

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

 

 

Rule 121 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 applies to all recognized schools, including unaided minority schools, in Delhi and Delhi School Tribunal has no power to award back wages

Supreme Court

28.07.2022

Rule 121 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 applies to all recognized schools, including unaided minority schools, in Delhi and Delhi School Tribunal has no power to award back wages

[Sunil Sikri Vs. Guru Harkishan Public School & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5562/2017, decided on 28.07.2022, Supreme Court]

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022072916590767862022%20SC%20-%20Sunil%20Sikri.pdf

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

Daily wage MCD Chowkidar, who was terminated from service pursuant to a raid conducted by the Deputy Chief Minister and Education Minister, GNCTD, held entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages

22 July 2022

Labour Court, Delhi

 

Daily wage MCD Chowkidar, who was terminated from service pursuant to a raid conducted by the Deputy Chief Minister and Education Minister, GNCTD, held entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages

 

On 03.03.2000, Sh. Subhash Yadav was appointed as a daily wage Chowkidar (security guard) by the MCD.

 

On 29.09.2017, Sh. Manish Sisodia, Deputy Chief Minister and Education Minister, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, conducted raid in the EDMC School, Kalyan Puri, Delhi-110091.

 

Vide Order dated 29.09.2017, the services of Sh. Subhash Yadav were terminated with immediate effect by the MCD. The allegations of renting out the classrooms of the school to the outsiders were leveled against Sh. Subhash Yadav.

 

Being aggrieved by the termination Order dated 29.09.2017, Sh. Subhash Yadav raised an Industrial Dispute (LID No. 320/2018) by filing a statement of claim before the Labour Court, Delhi.

Vide Award dated 22.07.2022, the Labour Court held that the termination of service of Sh. Subhash Yadav was illegal, in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and also in violation of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, consequently, directed the MCD to reinstate Sh. Subhash Yadav in service and give him all the consequential benefits, including full back wages. The Labour Court also awarded Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation to Sh. Subhash Yadav. The directive paragraphs of the Award dated 22.07.2022 is reproduced below for ready reference: -

 

“10. RELIEF

 

10.1 In view of findings under issues above it is held that the management has illegally terminated the workman in violation of principle of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly it is held that workman is held entitled and granted the following reliefs:

 

(i) Immediate reinstatement from the date of publication of this Award with

 

(ii) Full back wages since 29.09.2017 from the date of her illegal termination @ his last drawn wages per month i.e., agreed wages between the parties.

 

(iii) All consequential benefits from the date of his illegal termination till the date of his reinstatement.

 

(iv) All the due amount be paid within one month of the date of publication of present Award with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of publication till its realization.

 

(v) The workman is also awarded the cost of litigation for a total sum of Rs.20,000/- u/Sec. 11(7) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Application/Claim stands answered in the aforesaid terms.”

 

[Subhash Yadav Vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation, LID NO. 320/2018, date of Award 22.07.2022, Labour Court-IX, Rouse Avenue, District Courts, Delhi]

 

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://www.advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/202207251658755714Award%20dated%2022.07.2022-%20Subhash%20Yadav%20-%20Chowkidar%20-%20MCD.pdf

 

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

Illegal recoveries from the pension of a retired Havildar, Indian Army – Armed Forces Tribunal stayed the recovery

 21.07.2022

Armed Forces Tribunal

 

Illegal recoveries from the pension of a retired Havildar, Indian Army – Armed Forces Tribunal stayed the recovery

 

Laxmi Narain is a retired Havildar, Indian Army. He retired/discharged from service on 01.11.1974. As on date, Laxmi Narain is 78 years old.

 

Laxmi Narain has no source of income except pension which he receives from the Indian Army. Vide Order dated 09.05.2022, it was declared by the Indian Army that Laxmi Narain has received excess pension w.e.f. 09.08.2010 and, accordingly, directed the concerned bank to make recoveries from the pension of Laxmi Narain.

 

Being aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2022, Laxmi Narain filed an Original Application (OA No. 1492/2022) before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Laxmi Narain submitted before the Tribunal that in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masi, AIR 2015 SC 696, no recoveries can be made from the pensionary benefits. It was also submitted that Laxmi Narain was a group ‘C’ employee and, therefore, even otherwise the order of making recoveries from the pension was illegal. It was also submitted that no excess amount on account of pension was paid to Laxmi Narain and, as a matter of fact, he was entitled to receive revised/higher amount of pension than what was being paid to him.

 

In view of the submissions made by Laxmi Narain, the Armed Forces Tribunal, vide Order dated 21.07.2022, issue notice to the Union of India/Indian Army and also, inter-alia, declared as under: -

 

“In the meanwhile, there shall be stay of recovery. Respondent No.4 is also directed to instruct the concerned Bank not to make any further recovery.”

 

It may be noted that Laxmi Narain has served the country by participating in Indo China War 1962, Indo Pak War 1965 and also in Indo Pak War 1971.

 

[Ex Hav. Laxmi Narain Vs. Union of India, OA No. 1492/2022, Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, vide Order dated 21.07.2022]

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com