LEELA SHARMA Vs. GNCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned order dated June 02, 2010, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing WP(C) No.4164/2002, has held that compulsory retirement is an important tool to keep any organization vibrant and to prevent its clogging and decay by the sheer weight of employees who have ceased to be dynamos to propel the organization. To put it in the language commonly used, the learned Single Judge has held that since the object of compulsory retirement is to remove the dead wood from an organization the power to compulsorily retire dead wood employees would be available to the management of recognized schools under the Delhi School Education Act 1973. Holding further that the concept of compulsory retirement is rooted in public good and since the writ petitions by employees of schools against their management are maintainable because imparting education is a public purpose, the two cannot be divorced i.e. the public purpose served by compulsorily retiring dead wood and the right to maintain writ petitions must go hand-in-hand. In other words, as per the learned Judge, an employee of a school who maintains a writ petition against the management and qua maintainability pleads that education is a public purpose and thus the writ petition is maintainable, cannot turn around and say that power of compulsory retirement, which is in public interest, is not available to the management.

(2.) Appellant joined respondent No.2 school, then unrecognized, as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT for short) w.e.f. 01.01.1988 on the then consolidated salary of Rs. 900/- per month in terms of the letter of appointment dated 15.07.1988. After the school was granted recognition under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act?), the appellant was confirmed as a regular teacher to the post of TGT w.e.f. 01.08.1989. Eventually, w.e.f. 01.04.1990, respondent school also implemented the regular scales of pay and allowances for its teachers and other staff as per the mandate of Section 10 of the Act.

(3.) Appellant pleads that during her career as a Hindi Teacher in the school, she had worked hard and students taught by her have consistently shown outstanding performance. Appellant has quoted the result pertaining to class-10, which she had taught, for the last four successive academic years wherein the students taught by her have shown 100% result as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_31_ILRDLH22_2012_1.html</FRM>