R.K. Bhardwaj & Ors v. New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc) & Ors

order as to costs. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) VIPIN SANGHI (JUDGE) JULY 25, 2014

Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: 25.07.2014 + R.K. BHARDWAJ AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through : Sh. Sunny Chowdhary with Sh. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocates. Versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (NDMC) AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Sh. Shekhar Kumar, proxy counsel for Sh. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate, for NDMC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, an order dated 09.10.2013 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter 'the tribunal'), in T.A. No.28/2012, which rejected the petitioners' claims for re-employment as Principal/ Vice-Principal, is impugned. 2. The brief facts are that the Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereafter 'GNCT') by notification (hereafter 'the scheme') dated 29.01.2007 permitted the automatic re-employment of all retiring teachers up to PGT level, subject to fitness and vigilance clearances, till they attained 62 years. The NDMC, by its decision of Page 2 17.07.2007, extended the benefit of automatic re-employment to all retiring teachers in its schools up to PGT level, till they attained 62 years. The first petitioner was due to retire on 30.06.2012 from the post of Principal of N.P. Co-ed Senior Secondary School, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. He represented on 11.06.2012 to the Director Education, NDMC seeking re-employment; there was no response to this. Likewise, the second, third and fourth petitioners were due to retire on 31.08.2011, 31.07.2011 and 29.02.2012 from their posts as Vice- Principals in various schools, and made representations seeking re- employment. No response was received by any of them. The petitioners approached the Tribunal, which by its impugned order dated 09.10.2013, held that the petitioners were to be considered for re-employment only as PGT with all consequential benefits. Additionally, if they were found fit to be re-employed, they were to be granted compensatory allowance equivalent to 20% of the emoluments which they could have drawn as PGT, during the period they could not avail the benefit of the scheme. The order mandated that the petitioners were to be considered for re-employment as PGT and not to the post of Vice-Principals/Principals. 3. The Petitioner questions the impugned order to the extent that it has turned down his claim for the post of Principal/Vice-Principal, on re-employment basis. 4. The Tribunal in its order held, after noticing the previous decisions on the issue, that: "….The ratio decidendi of all the cases is that since there is policy for re-employment of teacher, the Principal/Sr. Page 3 Science Counsellor being teachers, are also entitled to be re-employed. When the right to re-employment is conferred upon incumbent of the post of teacher alone, he can seek re- employment only in terms of the policy applicable to teachers and such employment can be only to the post of PGT (Teacher)… 5. In view of the aforementioned, OAs are disposed of with direction to respondents to consider the applicants for their re-employment as PGT with all consequential benefits. In the event, the applicants are found fit for such appointment and joined as re-employed PGT, they may be given compensatory allowance equivalent to 20% of the emoluments which they could have drawn as PGT during the period they could not avail the benefit of the Scheme." 5. The petitioner argues that re-employment to the same post of Principal/Vice-Principal which he held prior to his retirement is permitted under the scheme. It is contended that this Court was approached with a similar issue in W.P. No. 4703 of 2011 titled, 'Dharam Singh v. The Chief Secretary & Anr.', i.e whether retired Principals and Vice-Principals too are entitled to automatic re- employment under the notification. It is argued that Dharam Singh (supra) holds that a teacher, on promotion as Principal or Vice- Principal does not cease to be a