Sanjay Kumar v. Guru Harkrishan Public School & ORS
$-13, 14, 16, 18& 19 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(i) + W.P.ICl 9512/2015 & CM APPLN.22360/2015 AMIT KUMAR MALIK Petitioner Through:
Mr. J.S. Lamba, Mr. Ahmad Shahrooz and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocates versus GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS ...Respondents Through:
Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocates for respondents No.l and 2 Ms. Niti Jain, Advocate for Mr.
Anuj Aggarwal, ASC for GNCTD (ii) + W.P.(CJ 9517/2015 & CM APPLN.22406/2015 SANJAY KUMAR Petitioner Through:
Mr. J.S. Lamba, Mr. Ahmad Shahrooz and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocates versus GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS ...Respondents Through:
Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocates for respondents No.l and 2 Ms. Niti Jain, Advocate for Mr.
Anuj Aggarwal, ASC for GNCTD (iii) + W.PTCJ 9519/2015 & CM APPLN.22408/2015 BUNTY CHAUDHARY Petitioner Through:
Mr. J.S. Lamba, Mr. Ahmad Shahrooz and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocates versus GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS ...Respondents W.Ps.(C) 9512, 9517, 9519, 9525 & By:AMULYA
Through:
Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocates for respondents No. 1 and 2 Mr. Devesh Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3 (iv) + W.P.(C) 9525/2015 & CM APPLN.22417/2015 AMIT KUMAR Petitioner Through:
Mr. J.S. Lamba, Mr. Ahmad Shahrooz and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocates versus GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS ...Respondents Through:
Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advoeates for respondents No. 1 and 2 Mr. Devesh Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3 (v) + W.P.rCJ 9528/2015 & CM APPLN.22420/2015 MAMTA CHAUDHARY Petitioner Through:
Mr. J.S. Lamba, Mr. Ahmad Shahrooz and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advoeates versus GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS ...Respondents Through:
Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocates for respondents No.
1 and 2 Ms. Niti Jain, Advocate for Mr.
Anuj Aggarwal, ASC for GNCTD
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 06.10.2015 In the above eaptioned five petitions, the challenge is to the IV.Fs.fCJ 9512, 9517, 9519, 9525 &
impugned order of 3"^^ July, 2015 (Annexure P-1) in which respondentSchool has observed that petitioners are not entitled to any back wages as the same has been set aside by this Court and on the principle of "No Work and No Pay" petitioners do not deserve to be given the back wages. Since the challenge to the impugned order (Annexure P-1) is on identical grounds in the above captioned five petitions, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties these petitions were heard together and by this common order, they are being disposed of. It is pointed out by learned counsel for respondent-School that in is, paragraphs No. 11 & 15 of the impugned order, petitioners have been called upon to give a declaration by way of affidavit to the effect that they were not gainfully employed for the period, the back wages are being claimed.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that there is no difficulty in giving the said declaration by way of affidavit by petitioners, but paragraphs No.9 and 10 of the impugned order deserve to be set aside because it was premature on the part of respondent-School to have observed that petitioners are not entitled to any back wages on the principle of "No Work and No Pay".
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and Rule 121 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, this Court finds that the observations made in paragraphs No.9 and 10 of the impugned order are uncalled for as respondent-School is expected to make up its mind only after the declaration so called for, is received. In view of the aforesaid, these five petitions are disposed of while making it clear that while taking no notice of the observations made in W.Ps.fC) 9512, 9517, 9519, 9525 & 9528 of 2015
paragraphs No. 9 and 10 in the impugned order, respondent-School shall decide petitioners' claim for back wages after obtaining the requisite declaration/affidavit within a period of twelve weeks. In case respondentSchool decides not to give full back wages to petitioners, then the reasons for doing so, shall be provided by respondent-School to petitioners within a period of a week after the decision is taken. With the above directions, the above captioned five petitions and the applications are disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti to both the sides. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE OCTOBER 06, 2015 s W.Ps. (C) 9512, 9517, 9519, 9525 & 9528 of 2015