Delhi School Education Act, 1973 – Section 10 - Delay in filing writ petition seeking 7th CPC salary is no ground to deny arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2016 – Delhi High Court

20 December 2022

Delhi High Court

Delhi School Education Act, 1973 – Section 10 - Delay in filing writ petition seeking 7^th CPC salary is no ground to deny arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2016 – Delhi High Court

 

In the year 2022, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, PGT (Physical Education), filed a writ petition [W.P. (C) 6841/2022] seeking salary as per 7^th CPC in terms of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.

 

The petition was opposed by the Lions Public School, Delhi, on the ground that the writ petition was belated and, therefore, the arrears of salary can only be paid for a period of 3 years preceding the date of filing the writ petition.

 

Delhi High Court, vide Order dated 20.12.2022, allowed the writ petition filed by Mr. Verma and held that delay in filing a writ petition is not a valid ground for denying arrears of salary to an employee w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The directive paragraph of the Order dated 20.12.2022 is reproduced below for ready reference: -

 

“26. The issue also arose for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Vidya Bharati School v. Directorate of Education & Ors., in LPA No. 541/2018 decided on 16.09.2022 and relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Keraleeya Samajam and Another (supra), the Division Bench held that limiting the claim of arrears to three years prior to filing the writ petition is untenable in view of the dicta of the Supreme Court. The Division Bench held that the School did not comply with the directions and obligations when it was required to do so by revising the salaries in accordance with Section 10(1) of the DSE&R on account of the revision under 6th CPC and now due to lapse of time, it cannot take away the benefits because of its own recalcitrance to comply with Government’s directions and statutory obligations. Non-compliance over a long period would not create any special equities in favour of the School and it does not get absolved of its statutory obligation to pay salaries in terms of 6th Pay Commission recommendations, as pay revisions in terms of Pay Commissions’ recommendations is a matter of public policy, with the objective of ensuring that with passage of time, purchasing power of the Government employee is not denuded by inflation and other relevant factors. Even in Shikha Sharma (supra), this Court has directed release of arrears under 6th CPC to the Petitioners in the said case without any restrictions/limitation of three years prior to the filing of the writ petitions and in fact, has also directed payment of interest @ 6% per annum with a further direction that on failure to pay the amounts within six months as directed by the Court, the School will incur a liability of payment of a higher rate of interest i.e. 9% per annum on the arrears of both 6th and 7th CPC. Both the contentions of the School are thus rejected.”

[Mukesh Kumar Verma Vs. Lions Public School & Ors., W.P. (C) 6841/2022, decided on 20.12.2022]

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2023011016733573222022%20Del%20Single%20-%20Mukesh%20Kumar%20Verma.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

Appointment on the post of PGT (Economics) (Female) (Post Code 67/20) in Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Applicant had M.A. (Economics) degree from Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu

17 November 2022

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi

 

Appointment on the post of PGT (Economics) (Female) (Post Code 67/20) in Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Applicant had M.A. (Economics) degree from Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu – Delhi Government failed to issue appointment letter to the applicant on the ground that Annamalai University is not recognized by University Grants Commission (UGC) – Applicant filed an Original Application (O.A.) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi and contended that in similar circumstances Kerela High Court, in W.P. (C) No. 16419/2022, has granted relief to the candidates – CAT issued notice to the Delhi Government, Annamalai University as well as UGC, and directed the Delhi Government to keep one post of PGT (Economics) (Female) (Post Code 67/20) vacant, as interim relief, during the pendency of O.A. before CAT

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/202301111673433002Order%20-%20Komal%20Vs.%20Annamalai.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

 

[Komal Vs. DSSSB & Ors., OA No. 3358/2022, date of Order – 17.11.2022]

 

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

Doctors/Medical Officers in Employees’ State Insurance Corporation are entitled to continue in service up to 65 years – Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

17 November 2022

 

Doctors/Medical Officers in Employees’ State Insurance Corporation are entitled to continue in service up to 65 years – Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

 

Dr. R.B. Gupta was appointed as Insurance Medical Officer (Grade-II) by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) on 26.05.1992.

 

On 31.08.2022, Dr. Gupta was retired by the ESIC on attaining 62 years of age. In terms of the Order dated 30.12.2016, passed by the ESIC, a medical officer is entitled to continue in service up to 65 years of age.

 

Being aggrieved, Dr. Gupta filed an Original Application [OA No. 3357/2022] before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

 

Vide Order dated 17.11.2022, the Tribunal directed the ESIC as under: -

 

“6. Although there is no representation on behalf of the respondents, after careful consideration of the issue involved in the present OA and the relevant rules/notification/circular governing the issue at hand, we consider it appropriate to dispose of this OA, at this initial stage. Circular dated 30.12.2016, issued by the ESIC and signed by one Director (Med. Admn.) is crystal clear and conclusively states that the age of superannuation of medical officers stands enhanced from the existing 62 years to 65 years with immediate effect. Once the ESI Corporation, by its own order, has enhanced the age of retirement of the doctors to 65 years without any rider or condition or proviso whatsoever, there is no cause for them to now issue order of retirement of the applicant on attaining the age of 62 years as that is no longer the age of superannuation. Moreover, the amendment to the Fundamental Rules (FR) also gives option to the concerned Medical Officer to seek enhancement of age from 62 years to 65 years. The only power vested with the Competent Authority, under the FR’s, is to decide such an option on the basis of expertise and experience. In case of the Medical Officer, who is professionally qualified and has worked for a period of years, the experience and expertise can be determined only on the basis of testimonials.

 

7. Therefore, in our considered view, the respondents are required to re-visit their order and review it strictly in accordance with the rules and instructions governing the subject specifically their own order dated 30.12.2016 bearing No.A-40/11/13/1/2016-Med.VI., read with amendment to FR’s. The competent authority amongst the respondents after such a review shall pass appropriate order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

 

5. OA stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”

 

[Dr. R. B. Gupta Vs. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation & Ors., O.A. No. 3357/2022, Decided on – 17.11.2022, Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022112616694735732022%20CAT%20-%20Dr.%20R.B.Gupta.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 English (Male) in DOE – CAT directed the DOE to issue appointment letter and grant all consequential benefits, including seniority

22 November 2022

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi

 

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 English (Male) in DOE – CAT directed the DOE to issue appointment letter and grant all consequential benefits, including seniority

 

In the year 2017, Mr. Mohit Kumar applied for appointment on the post of TGT English (Male) in DOE. He qualified the written examination but, vide rejection Order dated 07.05.2019, Mr. Mohit Kumar’s candidature was rejected by the DSSSB. Ground for rejection was that Mr. Mohit Kumar had B. Ed. (Special Education) degree whereas the essential qualification, as per the advertisement, was B. Ed. degree.

 

On 06.10.2022, Mr. Mohit Kumar filed an Original Application (O.A. No. 2928/2022) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

 

Vide Order dated 22.11.2022, the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the Original Application and directed the Director of Education, GNCTD to issue appointment letter to Mr. Mohit Kumar and grant him all the consequential benefits, including seniority. The directive paragraphs of the Order dated 22.11.2022 are reproduced below for ready reference: -

 

“4. Since, there is not even an iota of difference in the facts and the issues involved, we allow the present O.A. The result notice dated 07.05.2019 bearing No. F.No.163/Result/TGT(English)/Male/Int. Cell/DSSSB/2018-19/2229-38, is quashed and set aside to the extent that it rejects the candidature of the present applicant.

 

5. Subsequent to this direction, a further direction is issued to the respondents that in the event of the applicant meeting all other qualifications and eligibility criteria including merit in the selection examination, give him appointment to the post of TGT Male (English) with all consequential benefits including seniority at par with the candidates who were selected pursuant to the said examination. However, the consequential benefits so awarded shall only be on notional basis.”

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022123116724924482022%20CAT%20-%20Mohit%20Kumar.pdf

 

[Mohit Kumar Vs. DSSSB & Ors., O.A. No. 2928/2022, decided on 22.11.2022]

 

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

 

Appointment on the post of PGT (Computer Science) - Rejection of candidature on account of failure to upload the correct Experience Certificate in the e-dossier – CAT directed the DSSSB/Delhi Government to issue appointment letter with 25% back salary

15 December 2022

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi

 

Appointment on the post of PGT (Computer Science) - Rejection of candidature on account of failure to upload the correct Experience Certificate in the e-dossier – CAT directed the DSSSB/Delhi Government to issue appointment letter with 25% back salary

 

In the year 2017, Ms. Khushboo Singhal applied for appointment on the post of PGT (Computer Science) Female [Post Code 151/17]. She had all the requisite qualifications, including 1 year teaching experience, as required in the Advertisement. Ms. Singhal had experience of teaching in the following 2 schools: -

1.     The Cambridge International School = 11 Months and 25 days experience

2.     Mamta Modern Sr. Sec. School = 1 Year 2 months and 25 days experience

 

Ms. Khushboo Singhal appeared in the written examination and was shortlisted for uploading the e-dossier. However, at the time of uploading the e-dossier, Ms. Singhal inadvertently uploaded her experience certificate of Cambridge International School, which was less than 1 year teaching experience.

 

On 27.03.2019, DSSSB rejected the candidature on the ground that the applicant had uploaded an experience certificate wherein the teaching experience was less than 1 year.

 

Being aggrieved, Ms. Singhal filed an Original Application [OA No. 1359/2019] before the CAT. She, inter alia, contended that other candidates were given 2^nd opportunity to upload the deficient documents but no such opportunity was given to her. She contended that the action on the part of DSSSB was discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

 

Vide Order dated 15 December 2022, CAT held as under: -

“12. In the light of the aforesaid decision, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has itself dealt with the issue No. 1 that second opportunity has not been given to the applicant qua the rejection of the claim, though it was given to other candidates as highlighted above which is itself arbitrary and discriminatory in nature as well as irrational. The said aspect has been dealt in para 9 of the aforesaid decision. Even otherwise, the principle of natural justice has grossly been violated inasmuch as can be seen for the Rejection Order itself the representations of the applicant have not been dealt with and as such principle of natural justice have not been followed.

 

13. In that view of the matter, the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment to the post of PGT (Computer Science) Female, Post Code 151/17 and issue necessary order of appointment subject to verification of the aforesaid certificate, if found, in order and also compliance of other procedural formalities in the unreserved category. However, it is directed that the applicant shall not be entitled to any arrears of pay. The Appointment Order should be issued within a period of three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which the applicant shall also be entitled to 25% of the arrears of salary. The OA is also allowed with all consequential benefits (such as emoluments) thereto. No order as to costs.”

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022123016724076832022%20CAT%20-%20Khushboo%20Singhal.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

 

Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) to re-consider launching 3 months online bridge course for B.Ed. (Special Education) students of Jamia Millia Islamia – Delhi High Court

14 November 2022

Delhi High Court

 

Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) to re-consider launching 3 months online bridge course for B.Ed. (Special Education) students of Jamia Millia Islamia – Delhi High Court

 

Jamia Millia Islamia, a Central University, started B. Ed. (Special Education) Learning Disability [B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (LD)] course in the year 2001. For conducting B.Ed. (Special Education) course, a university needs recognition from Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI). Jamia Millia Islamia, however, did not have the recognition for conducting B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (LD) course from RCI till the year 2011. From 2001 till 2011, around 300 students passed out from Jamia Millia Islamia with B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (LD) degree.

 

In 2013, 3 months online bridge course was conducted by Jamia Millia Islamia, with the approval of RCI, for the students, who did B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (LD) during the period from 2001-2011, so that their degrees could be regularized. Only 23 students could avail the benefit of the said 3 months online course because no personal initiation/email/SMS was given by the University to the students regarding the said course.

 

One student namely, Mrs. Garima Midha, who did B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (LD) from Jamia in the year 2003-2004, requested the University as well as RCI to re-launch the 3 months online course for her and other similarly situated students. University agreed to the request of Mrs. Midha but RCI refused to allow the University to re-conduct the course.

 

Being aggrieved, Mrs. Midha filed a writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 13749/2022] before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

 

Hon’ble Delhi High Court, vide Order dated 14.11.2022, allowed the writ petition with the following directions: -

 

“10. On above representation, RCI’s stand, as borne out from their counter affidavit, is that the bridge course was only a one-time concession and since it has been discontinued, “the same cannot be conducted for the sake of the petitioner, who is ignorant of the statutory status of the answering respondent.”

 

11. While RCI is conscious of the predicament of the students and fortunately stepped in to enable students to qualify as special educators by launching FC-ECLD online course, it is now not agreeable to extend this benefit to the Petitioner. Therefore, question arises whether benefit of bridge course should be restricted as a one-time measure. No doubt this facility cannot be opened for one student alone. However, as it appears from the representation of the University, there are large number of students are still not qualified. It must be noted that the University is agreeable to conduct the course. Furthermore, the objective and rationale behind introducing the said bridge course must be kept in mind. The University did not apply for CRR as it was not covered under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Requirement for registration in RCI-CRR, however, later became an essential criterion for employment as a Special Educator. Thus, students despite training/ education remain unqualified for employment as a Special Educator. In order to boost employment for such students, RCI introduced the bridge course.

 

12. In the opinion of this Court, the foregoing reasons, re-launching the course would only further interest of the students and ultimately address the needs of special children as Petitioner’s counsel informs that there is a dearth of qualified teachers/ special educators. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with the following directions: -

 

(i) RCI shall decide the representation of the University dated 17th/ 18th August, 2022, in light of the observations made hereinabove, within a period of six weeks from today. In the event, RCI finds favour with University’s representation – wide publicity be given to the decision by issuing public notices as well as written intimation to all eligible students, at their last known address available with Respondents.

 

(ii) In the event RCI takes a view which is adverse to the Petitioner, she shall be at liberty to take recourse against the same, in accordance with law.”

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022120116698925752022%20Del%20Single%20-%20Garima%20Midha.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

 

[Garima Midha Vs. Rehabilitation Council of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 13749/2022, decided on = 14.11.2022]

 

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

Delhi High Court stays Suspension Order of a teacher passed by Ravindra Public School

Delhi High Court

18 November 2022

 

Delhi High Court stays Suspension Order of a teacher passed by Ravindra Public School

 

Mr. S. S. Tyagi is a permanent Trained Graduate Teacher (English) in Ravindra Public School, Delhi. He was entitled to receive salary as per 7^th CPC in terms of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. However, the said benefit was illegally denied by the school.

 

Being aggrieved, Mr. S. S. Tyagi, along with 8 other teachers, filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court seeking salary as per 7^th CPC.

 

The school, in order to victimise Mr. S. S. Tyagi, vide Order dated 17.06.2020, illegally suspended him from service. Mr. S. S. Tyagi challenged his suspension order dated 17.06.2020 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Hon’ble High Court, vide Order dated 01.10.2020, set aside the suspension order dated 17.06.2020.

 

Thereafter, vide Order dated 10.01.2022, Mr. S. S. Tyagi was again suspended from service. Mr. Tyagi challenged his second suspension order dated 10.01.2022 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Vide Order dated 18.11.2022, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court stayed the suspension order dated 10.01.2022. The directive paragraphs of the Order dated 18.11.2022 are reproduced below for ready reference: -

“5. Issue notice. Ms. Tyagi accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 3. Upon the petitioner taking steps, issue notice to respondents no. 1 & 2 through all permissible modes. Counter affidavit and reply to the application, if any, be filed within six weeks.

 

6. In the light of the decision of the Division Bench in LPA No. 37/2022 the operation of the impugned orders will remain stayed till the next date. This would, however, not entitle the petitioner for the present to claim any arrears for the differential amount. The relevant extract of the decision in Delhi Public School Dwarka vs. Sarika Prasad & Ors. reads as under:

“27. Respondent No.1 was put under suspension on 24.02.2020 and the approval of Director of Education ought to have been received on or before 11.03.2020 and pursuant to the said date, Respondent No.1 could not have been kept under suspension and the order of approval granted by Director of Education on 11.03.2021 would not revive the order of suspension which had lapsed on 11.03.2020.”

 

7. List on 24.04.2023.”

 

[S. S. Tyagi Vs. Ravindra Public School & Ors., WP (C) No. 15898/2022, Order dated – 18.11.2022, Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Next date of hearing = 24.04.2023]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022120116698808182022%20Del%20Single%20-%20S%20S%20TYAGI.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