Back
JYOTI SINGH
Ajit Sarkar – Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Managing Committee, Air Force Schools/air Force Golden Jubilee Institute – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)
1. Present writ petition lays a challenge to the impugned order dated 15.07.2022, whereby a major penalty of compulsory retirement from service has been imposed on the Petitioner under Rule 117(b)(ii) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
2. Preliminary objection is taken by learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 2 to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the penalty of compulsory retirement can only be challenged by the Petitioner by way of an appeal before the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') constituted under Section 11 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
3. In response to the said objection, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has not been dismissed or removed or reduced in rank and has been compulsorily retired and therefore, an appeal shall not lie before the Tribunal which is evident from a plain reading of Section 8(3) of the Act. Reliance is placed in support of the said plea on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Leela Sharma v. GNCT of Delhi & Ors., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 690
The main legal point established is that the penalty of compulsory retirement can only be challenged before the Tribunal under Section 8(3) of the Act and not through a writ petition.
Compulsory retirement does not require prior approval under Section 36(1) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, distinguishing it from termination and emphasizing the need for procedural fairness.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order of compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the government, and the court will not interfere with such order....
The assessment of an employee's entire service record is crucial for deciding on compulsory retirement, and the order must be based on proper grounds and subjective satisfaction of the authority.
Retrospective penalties for compulsory retirement are impermissible and must align with the order date past which no previous penalty exists.
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
