Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Rekha Sabharwal - Petitioner
Versus
Director of Education & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 7331 of 2008
Decided On : 06-02-2017
Salary Dispute - Education - Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 - Section 10 - Section 10 of DSER Act and Rules, 1973, governs the payment of salary to the petitioner. The court found that the petitioner received her salary either by cheque or in cash by signing across the revenue stamps, and therefore, this is one such possible and plausible view that petitioner has received complete salary. The complaint of harassment against the petitioner was found to be baseless because no other employee of the school supported the petitioner as regards the harassment of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, challenged the Inquiry Report rejecting her complaint of being paid less salary by the school. The report found that the petitioner received her salary either by cheque or in cash by signing across the revenue stamps, and the complaint of harassment against the petitioner was found to be baseless.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner received her complete salary and the complaint of harassment was baseless. The court also dismissed the petitioner's argument that she was not heard before the report was issued.
Issues: Dispute over payment of salary and allegations of harassment by the school.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the petitioner received her complete salary either by cheque or in cash, and the complaint of harassment was baseless as no other employee of the school supported the petitioner's claim.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed due to lack of merit.
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who was an Assistant Teacher in the respondent no. 3/school at the relevant time from 1.4.2003 till September, 2006, challenges the Inquiry Report dated 15.12.2006 of the respondent no. 1/Director of Education which has rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner claiming that she had been paid less salary. I may note that the petitioner was suspended by the respondent no. 3/school in September, 2006, and therefore, the issue as regards payment of complete salary qua the period in question is from 1.4.2003 when the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher and till September, 2006.
2. Petitioner filed the following complaint dated 22.11.2006 to the respondent no. 1/Director of Education and which reads as under:-
“To
Court Sh. P.C. Ranga Sahab/Copy/Case No. 311/05/A 13241 dated 11.11.05
Permanent Legal Service Authority, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Market.
Present: Prakash Keswani, Chairman, Sai Memorial Girls School, Sai Bhawan, Geeta Colony Delhi 31 (information)
The Director of Education Old Secretariat, Govt. of Delhi, Delhi.
PETITION OF Smt. Rekha Sabharwal D/o Sh. Kulwant Singh, R/o H.No. 260-B, Gali No. 4 & B-A, New Lahore, Shastri Nagar, Delhi 31.
Sir,
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1. That the applicant is an assistant teacher in Sai Memorial Girls School, Sai Bhawan colony Delhi-110031, since 01.04.2003.
2. That since the beginning of my appointment the School Management have been showing big salary in my name and had been paying a very small salary i.e. Rs.2500/-in the first year.
3. That the management of the School has always been victimizing me and harassing me without my just cause or reason, in this respect the applicant had made several complainants sent through registered post and in this connection I was summoned for a public hearing by your honour good offices.
4. That the applicant has unjustifiably and wrongfully suspended from the school and in his respect the applicant had given a representation to your honour by hand.
5. That since 15.4.2004 the management showed my salary in their record as Rs.11,400/-but I never received full salary from the management and this way the management fraudulently have been misappropriating a major part of the applicant’s salary. The management gave only Rs.3700/-as my salary of July 2005 in August 2005 and the salary of August 2005 was given to me was Rs.4010/-in September 2005 and thereafter the applicant had stopped her account in the concerned bank on 7.7.2005 and this matter was investigated by the Education Officer at Zone 3rd, Rani Garden, Delhi and the Management had shown photocopy of receipt of Rs.10,849/-.
6. That the management by putting pressure and force wanted me to acknowledge the fill receipt of the salary amount without paying the same in full to which the applicant had refused to sign before the education officer.
7. That the to the several complaints made by the applicant against the Management, the management has become hostile towards the applicant and other teachers and as a part of harassment have wrongfully suspended the applicant from the school and have initiated a disciplinary inquiry against the applicant.
8. That the applicant appeared before the inquiry committee on 20.11.2006 and the matter has been adjourned to 28.11.2006 as the applicant had denied all the allegations levelled against her. It is apparent that the Management is taking revenge on the applicant only due to her legitimate and right demand of her full salary as prescribed by the government.
It is therefore, prayed that your honour be pleased to consider this application sympathetically and a fresh inquiry of the entire matter be initiated at your honour’s level.
It is further prayed that the management be directed to also consider the complaints made by the applicant against them so that justice be done to the applicant.
Delhi
Dated 22.11.2006
Applicant
Smt. Rekha Sabharwal
D/o Sh.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
