SARDAR NARINDER SINGH Vs. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF SHRI GURU TEGH BAHADUR KHALSA SR. SEC. SCHOOL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks issuance of directions against respondent No. 1 to withdraw their letter dated 7.8.1986 and 30.8.86. The petitioner also seeks directions for declaration of Sub -rule 2 of Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 ultra vires . Directions are also sought by the petitioner against respondents 1 and 2 to pay the petitioners entire salary and other allowances from the month of September 1986 onwards.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as set out in the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Language Teacher by the erstwhile Managing Committee of the school w.e.f. 24.7.1950. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of PGT on 8.8.1962 in the Pay Scale of Rs. 350 -700/ - p.m. on account of his hard labour, honest and efficient outlook and ultimately the petitioner was appointed as a Principal of the school w.e.f. September 26, 1974 by Shri Tikka Jagjit Singh, Retd. Judge High Court as its Chairman and the said appointment was duly approved by the Director of Education, Delhi, i.e., the respondent No. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was performing his duties and functions as a Principal diligently, honestly and conscientiously in the best interest and welfare of the school. In the meantime Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Act was enacted and the elections for the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee were held. The Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee constituted the Managing Committee of the school under it and the new Managing Committee of the school had taken over headed by Shri Tarlochan Singh Sarna as its Chairman. The then Chairman of the new Managing Committee Shri Trilochan Singh Sarna arbitrarily cancelled the petitioners appointment as Principal of the school, w.e.f. August, 29, 1975 and acted in an absolutely illegal manner in utter disregard of the rule without assigning any reason whatsoever and without seeking the approval of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 3 wrote a letter dated 1.9.1975 to the Chairman of the school wherein he disapproved such arbitrary and illegal decision of the Chairman of the school . The petitioner then filed a civil suit for injunction being Suit No. 782/75 in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, challenging the cancellation of his appointment. The Sub Judge Delhi stayed the impugned resolution dated 29.8.75. Afterwards the new Managing Committee on the directions of the respondent No. 3 reviewed the case of the petitioner and revoked its earlier resolution dated 29.8.75 cancelling the petitioners appointment as Principal of the school. It was also resolved that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been treated on duty for the intervening period i.e. from 29.8.75 to 16.4.76 and held that the petitioner shall be entitled to full pay with all the allowances and services benefits. However the petitioner was not paid arrears of his salary and allowances for the said period. After the inception of the new Managing Committee the Manager of the school started interfering in the day to day affairs of the school in spite of the fact that the petitioner made many requests to him that such an attitude would only spoil the atmosphere of the school as the same was not conducive to the interest and welfare of the school. The petitioner made such request both orally as well as in writing but to no effect. The petitioner also requested the Chairman on a number of occasions to convene the meeting of the managing committee so as to discuss the functioning of the school and the interference of the Manager in the day to day affairs of the school, however, in spite of this no meeting of the Managing Committee was held. The petitioner also requested the Chairman to intervene in the matter as such a hostile attitude of the Manager towards the petitioner would have an adverse effect on the smooth functioning of the school besides affecting the education of the students. Under such situation created by the Manager of the school, the petitioner was compelled to seek voluntarily retirement vide his letter dated 25.10.2984. However, on 29.10.84 the petitioner was made to withdraw the same under the suggestions and directions of Mr. S. Jaswant Singh, President DSGMC on the assurance the grievance of the petitioner would be looked into. But the attitude of the Manager remained unchanged and he became even more hostile in his vindictive attitude. Ultimately in or around August, 1985 the petitioner filed a civil writ petition in the High Court seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to pay the arrears of salary along with interest for the intervening period i.e. 29.8.75 to 16.4.76 after being reinstated. This Court vide order dated 20.11.85 directed the respondent No. 3 to deduct the said amount of arrears of salary from the future grant -in -aid payable to the school and further directed to pay the same to the petitioner. The Manager of the school got infuriated by the decision of the this Court. The salary of the petitioner for the month of October, 1985 was delayed for the said reason alone for a period of more than two months. The Manager of the school deliberately withheld the petitioners salary for the months of April and December 1985 and January and February 1986 on imaginary grounds with the sole intentions to put the petitioner under harassment. Under such compelling circumstances and harassment that was being meted out to the petitioner and his family, the petitioner was again forced to seek voluntary retirement and in this regard he made an application to the Chairman of the Managing Committee seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.7.86.

(3.) MS . Sujata Kashyap counsel for the respondent/DOE submits that the Managing Committee of the school did not seek any approval from the Directorate of Education to grant voluntary retirement to the petitioner. Counsel further submits that even there was no such intimation received by the Directorate of Education that meeting of the Managing Committee was held to consider the said request of the petitioner to grant him voluntary retirement. Ms. Kashyap thus submits that the action taken by the school management is ex -facie illegal as the petitioner was well within his right to withdraw his request before the deadline of 31.8.86 and also in view of the fact that no decision in this regard was taken by the Managing Committee of the school nor any approval was sought by the Managing Committee on the request of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement.