SHRI PRAMESH, S/O S. LAKHAN SINGH Vs. THE DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition involves a short question for determination. Petitioner was working with respondent No. 2 as Peon. It is the case of the petitioner that on 15.1.1994 petitioner was directed not to come to the school and was coerced in writing a resignation letter. Against such arbitrary and whimsical order, the petitioner made a representation. Petitioner on 16.1.1994 itself intimated the Director of Education that said resignation stood withdrawn as same was obtained under coercion. However, the case of the respondent No. 2 is that resignation was submitted by the petitioner which was accepted by the Managing Committee of respondent No. 2 and the resignation letter was voluntary. The stand of respondent No. 2 seems not correct in view of the representation made to the Director of Education by the petitioner and the order passed by the Director of Education on 20.1.1994 itself. At page 42 is the order issued by the Deputy Education Officer which inter alia, says that the resignation of the petitioner was obtained forcibly and the school management did not allow the petitioner to mark his attendance, Therefore, a direction was issued to the school management to take the petitioner on duty and the resignation be treated as withdrawn. Again a similar direction was issued on 25.1.1994 by the Director of Education and the following paragraph is important for determination of issue with regard to the payment of back wages from 15.1.1994 till 20.10.2000 on which date the petitioner re -joined the duties as per the order of this Court: -

(2.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 2 has contended that the Deputy Education Officer could not have passed the order as the order was to be passed by the Director of Education. Another contention raised by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is that pursuant to Rule 121 of Delhi Education School Rules, the power to grant back wages would be under the domain of the Managing Committee of the school and no direction can be issued by the Director of Education.

(3.) I have been told by counsel for respondent No. 1 & 3 that for not implementing the direction given by the Director of Education, the recognition of the school was withdrawn as well as the grant given to the school was also withheld. It is only after the petitioner approached this Court and a direction was issued by this Court for complying with the order passed by the Director of Education dated 20.1.1994, the petitioner was taken on duty on 20.10.2000. I do not find any force in the arguments of counsel for respondent No. 2 that no order was passed by Director of Education. At page 54 of the paper -book there is a letter dated 2.8.1995, the Deputy Director of Education has asked the Explanation of respondent No. 2 and the same is to the following effect: