NUTAN GULATI Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, two reliefs are claimed by the petitioner-Smt. Nutan Gulati who superannuated as a Librarian from the respondent no.2/Delhi Public School on 31.1.2013. Petitioner firstly claims re-employment up to the age of 62 years. The second relief claimed by the petitioner is for continuation of employment up to 30.4.2013 in view of the proviso to sub-Rule-2 of Rule 110 of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973.

(2.) SO far as the first relief of re-employment is concerned, counsel for the parties could not dispute that the issue is covered by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shashi Kohli Vs. DOE (2011)179 DLT 440. As per this judgment, in unaided private schools, there is no automatic entitlement of re-employment up to 62 years and the right is only to be re- considered subject to satisfaction of the school. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent no.2-school will consider the petitioner for re-employment up to the age of 62 years in terms of ratio of the judgment in the case of Shashi Kohli (supra).

(3.) PETITIONER also relies upon the circular issued by the Director of Education dated 21.1.2011, and as per which circular the posts of librarians in Government Schools have been declared as teaching posts for all purposes with immediate effect and librarians are to get all benefits applicable to the teachers category prospectively from 21.1.2011. Counsel for the petitioner urges that though this order of the Director of Education is only for Government schools, however by virtue of Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, employees of private unaided schools will be entitled to have the same benefits as given to employees in Government schools. It is accordingly argued that petitioner being a librarian would also be entitled to the same benefits as that of a teacher, i.e since a teacher is entitled to retire on 30th April of the next financial year when actual date of superannuation is after 1st of November of the calendar year, and since in the present case petitioner has superannuated on 31.1.2013, therefore, the date of superannuation of the petitioner should be taken as 30.4.2013.