* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.7844/2010 & CM No. 20277/2010
% Date of Decision: 30.03.2011
Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti ...... Petitioner
Through Mr. S. Rajappa, Advocate
Versus
R.C. Dubey ...... Respondent
Through Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Amandeep Joshi, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
1. Whether reporters of Local papers NO
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28th May, 2010
in TA 1471/2009 titled as R.C. Dubey Vs. UOI & Anr., whereby the
discharge simplicitor of the respondent was held to be punitive and
the order dated 5th July, 1995 discharging the respondent was
quashed and set aside and the petitioner was directed to reinstate
the respondent as Principal of Navodaya Vidyalaya in the same rank
WP(C) No. 7844/2010 Page 1 of 5
and grade which he was holding when his services were terminated
and he was discharged.
The Tribunal in para 24 of the impugned order had given the
following directions:-
“24. In the result, the TA is allowed in the following
terms:
(i) The impugned order dated 5.7.1995 are quashed
and set aside and we direct the Respondents to
reinstate the Applicant as principal of one of the
Navodaya vidyalayas in the same rank and grade he
was holding when his services were terminated.
(ii) The respondents would, however, be at liberty to
initiate departmental enquiry against the Applicant for
the alleged misconducts, if so advised.
(iii) With regard to the consequential salary benefits, it
is noted that between 1995 and 2010, the Applicant
has lost his prime service period of about 15 years and
deprived of his salary and associated allowances.
During the hearing, Counsel for Applicant informs that
during the said period, the Applicant has to eke out
his livelihood by taking tuitions of students and was
earning something but not to the extent that he would
have got from his salary and allowances. In this
peculiar circumstances of the case, it is not possible to
direct the Respondents to pay the full back wages to
the Applicant. We, therefore, direct the Respondents
to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.3 lakhs, which in our
considered opinion, the Applicant would be entitled to.
WP(C) No. 7844/2010 Page 2 of 5
(iv) The Respondents are directed to implement the
above directions (i) and (iii) within a period of 6 weeks
from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this
order.”
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since
the respondent was a probationer, therefore, pursuant to the order
dated 28th May, 2010, he is to be reinstated as a probationer in the
same rank and grade he was holding when he was discharged. The
learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction has contended that
the petitioner shall implement the order of Tribunal and the petition
was filed as an impression had been gathered that the petitioner
perhaps has to be reinstated as a permanent teacher.
There cannot be doubt that by impugned order the Tribunal
had ordered reinstatement of the respondent as principal of one of
the Navodaya vidyalayas in the same rank and grade he was holding
when his services were terminated. When the services of the
respondent were terminated he was a probationer, therefore he is to
be reinstated as probationer. The learned counsel for the respondent
also does not oppose this proposition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions, states
that the petitioner shall comply with the order dated 28th May, 2010
WP(C) No. 7844/2010 Page 3 of 5
within four weeks. Consequently, the petitioner shall reinstate the
respondent and will also be entitled to initiate departmental inquiry
afresh against the respondent for the alleged misconduct, if the
petitioners will be so advised. The petitioner will also pay a sum of
Rs.3 lakhs which was computed up till 2010, till the date of order, as
the respondent was not given any emoluments for almost 15 years.
This amount of three lakhs which was payable within six weeks of
the order of the Tribunal has not been paid though the order of the
Tribunal was not stayed by this Court in the writ petition. The
learned counsel for the petitioner state that the amount in terms of
the order of the Tribunal shall be now paid within four weeks.
Since the respondent was not paid the amount in compliance
with the order of the Tribunal which was not stayed, the petitioner
shall also consider whether any extra amount would be payable to
the respondent sympathetically in the facts and circumstances.
Since the petitioner has consented to comply with the order of
the Tribunal no further directions are required to the parties and the
petitioner shall comply with the order of the Tribunal within four
weeks. The writ petition is disposed of with these direction. The
WP(C) No. 7844/2010 Page 4 of 5
parties are, however, left to bear their own costs of this petition. All
the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
Dasti.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
VEENA BIRBAL, J.
March 30, 2011.
rs
WP(C) No. 7844/2010 Page 5 of 5