The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent did not abandon her post and was entitled to benefits till her superannuation.

V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated July 18, 2008 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal (“Tribunal” in short) in Appeal No.14/1997 filed by the respondent No.1 herein against order dated December 12, 1996 purporting to be an order of her termination from the services of the petitioner No.1 School.

2. It was the case of the respondent No.1 that she was employed as an Assistant Teacher by the petitioner school however she was not paid according to her scale. It was her case that her work and conduct was satisfactory showing excellent result. She and other teachers made a representation to the Directorate of Education-respondent No.2 to pay her salary by cheque. It was her case that due to this the management of the petitioner school became vindictive and they entangled her in various criminal cases and started issuing various memos to her. The petitioners dispatched a letter on December 23, 1996 by antedating the same to December 02, 1996 alleging that the petitioner school had surrendered her post. Neither any charge-sheet was served nor any opportunity was granted to her before surrendering her post which had the effect of her termination from the services of the petitioner No.1 School. She had also stated that she was not allowed to enter the school. It was her case that the respondent Nos.2 & 3 had failed to take any action against the petitioners although many irregularities were pointed out.

3. The case of the petitioners was that the order dated December 02, 1996 was not appealable because it simply indicated that the respondent No.1 had abandoned the post. It was their case that the respondent No.1 and few other teachers at the instigation of Sh. Attar Singh Arya who was an ex-office bearer of the school started creating mischief in the school. He wanted to open a new school in the area and wanted to get the students and teachers transferred from the school. An agitation was started by few of the teachers from September 13, 1996 when they stopped teaching the students. Other teachers and members of the management were manhandled. Even the officers of the education department were not spared. Director of Education was forced to write to the DCP of the concerned district with a request to provide aid and assistance to the school as well as to the officials of the Directorate of Education. Memos were issued to the respondent No.1 and other teachers but to no effect. All teachers except two came and joined the school. Since studies of the students were suffering because of non-cooperation of the teachers including the respondent No.1, permission was sought from the education department to engage adhoc teachers. New teachers were appointed and they started imparting teaching to the students. Despite memos and notice in the newspaper, the respondent No.1 did not join her duties. A final opportunity was given to the teachers including the respondent No.1 to resume duties by November 30, 1996, failing which it would be presumed that they had abandoned their service. Despite that the respondent No.1 did not join the duties. So, a notice was sent on December 02, 1996 informing the teachers and the respondent No.1 that since they had abandoned their posts, they have no right to hold the same. The respondent No.1 was not a confirmed employee and she had abandoned job of her own and had joined Golden Valley Public School since September/October, 1996 so she is not entitled to any relief.

4. The Tribunal was of the view that the respondent No.1 had been approaching various authorities including the Director of Education, area SHO, informing them that she and other teachers were physically prevented from entering the School from October 23, 1996. The Tribunal also held that there was no intention on the part of the respondent No.1 to abandon her service. She was much interested in continuing with her employment but the ground realities were that she was physically prevented from enterin