L R SHARMA Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a former Principal of a Government recognised and aided school is directed against the action of the management of the school declining to give effect to the petitioner's communication withdrawing his letter seeking voluntary retirement and treating him as having relinquished his post. The petition has been filed in the following circumstances:

(2.) The petitioner joined Shri Mahavir Jain Higher Secondary School, a Government recognised and aided institution in 1951 as P.G.T. (English) and was promoted as acting Principal in 1966 and continued to act as Principal until February 1968. Pursuant to a selection for appointment to the post of Principal, the petitioner was appointed as Principal of the school in August 1970, and was working in that capacity during the material period. It has been a common case of the parties that before the coming into force of the Delhi Education Act, 1973, for short, the Act, the age of retirement of the petitioner in terms of the Delhi Education Code, 1965, was 60 years and this condition of service of the petitioner was preserved by first proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act. As the petitioner did not opt for different terms of conditions of service with regard to retirement, he was entitled to continue in service until attaining the age of 60 years. Rule 110(1) of the Rules, framed under the Act, makes provision for the age of retirement of employees of recognised private schools at 58 but, consistent with provisions of Section 8(1), preserved the right of the existing employees to higher age of retirement. Neither the Delhi Education Code nor any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder made any provision for voluntary retirement by the existing employee before the age of superannuation. It appears that the petitioner has, for some time, been dissatisfied with the management of the School and claims that out of sheer frustration, arising out of his inability to improve matters on account of resistance, the petitioner sought voluntary retirement from service by his letter of March 8, 1978 (Annexure I), by giving three months notice to the management. The voluntary retirement was to take effect from August 8, 1978. The letter invoked the provisions of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules. When the aforesaid communication was sent, the petitioner had already put in 27 years of service in the school and laid claim to service rendered elsewhere prior to his joining the school, being taken into account for the purpose of his pensionary benefits. This is indicated in his letter of February 24, 1978, to the Deputy Director of Education (Annexure R-2). The Managing Committee of the school claimed to have considered the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement in its meeting held on April 26, 1978, and decided to accept the same and to allow the petitioner to voluntarily retire on August 7, 1978, in terms of the petitioner's letter. It is claimed that the petitioner attended this meeting and had affixed his signature to the minute book. The petitioner admits to having signed the minute book but claims that he had signed it before the meeting started but did not stay to attend it. Be that as it may, by their letter of May 30, 1978 (Annexure R-6). the Manager of the school informed the petitioner that he had been permitted to retire voluntarily on August 7, 1978, on the expiry of three months notice. An intimation of this was also sent to the Education Officer. It appears that subsequent to the letter of resignation, the petitioner had second thoughts, presumably because pressure was brought to bear on him by the parents and Teachers Association and his friends that it would not be in the interest of the school that the petitioner should seek voluntary retirement. The petitioner has placed on record letters exchanged between the petitioner and the Parent-Teachers Association (Annexures II and III) and certain other correspondence (Annexure IV) to reinforce this claim. According to the petitioner, because of this friendly pressure, the petitioner informed the Manager of the school by his letter of May 29, 1978 (Annexure V) that in view of the "changed circumstances. the persistent appeal of parents and others and in the larger interest of students" his letter seeking permission to retire voluntarily may be "treated as withdrawn". The management reacted rather quickly to his communication and informed the petitioner by their letter of May 30, 1978 (Annexure VI) that the Managing Committee had decided that the letter of resignation should not be allowed to be withdrawn "in the best interest of the school and education of the children and in the greater public interest". The petitioner was eventually relieved on the date from which his voluntary retirement was to take effect in spite of the protest of the petitioner that on the withdrawal of his letter of retirement he was entitled to continue in service until he attained the age of superannuation. This is how the petitioner filed the present petition on or about August 17, 1978. The plea of the petitioner for stay of the operation of the decision of the Managing Committee to relieve the petitioner was, however, turned down.

(3.) The petition is opposed on behalf of the Managing Committee, which is respondent No. 3 to the petition. Delhi Administration and the Director of Education are respondents 1 and 2 respectively, but neither of them have taken any interest in the present proceedings, presumably because they are treating the dispute as being essentially between the petitioner, on the one hand, and the Managing Committee of the school, on the other.