W.P.(C) 4947/2015

Page 1 of 14

$~2

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 21 February 2022

+

W.P.(C) 4947/2015

SANJAY SINGH AND ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv.

versus

N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Anjum Javed, ASC (C), GNCTD

with Mr. Devendra Kumar, Adv. for

R-1 and 2.

Mr. Pramod Gupta, Adv. for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

YASHWANT VARMA, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioners here were engaged on contractual basis in the third

respondent Institution. They were engaged in the capacity of Bus Drivers

(petitioner Nos. 1 to 3), Bus Conductors (petitioner No. 4) and Gardeners

(petitioner No. 5). They are stated to have been appointed on a

consolidated pay as per the particulars set forth in paragraph 3 of the writ

petition. Undisputedly no appointment letters are stated to have been issued

in their favour. The writ petition itself has been preferred seeking the

following reliefs: -

“a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction for

the respondent to release the salaries/arrears of the petitioners from the date

of their respective appointments as per pay scales granted to similarly

placed employees of govt. schools.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000767

W.P.(C) 4947/2015

Page 2 of 14

b) Issue a writ or direction for the respondent to regularize the services of

the petitioners from the date of their respective appointments and issue them

letters of appointment in accordance to the rules under the Delhi School

Education Act, 1973.

c) Directing the authorities concerned to keep a regular account of such

deductions, furnish to each of the petitioners pass-books, etc. containing

details of such deductions from his/her salary in the past and to give such

details in future in accordance with the relevant rules.

d) Directing the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioners

at their whims and fancies and/or as punishment for the petitioners

protesting against the illegal acts of respondent No. 3 under the protection of

respondent No.1& 2.

d) Directing the respondents to disclose their provident fund account Nos.

and amounts deposited in the same till date and further direct the respondent

No.3 to produce the salary register before this Hon'ble Court and/or direct

respondent No.2 to take possession of the salary register and provident fund

register maintained by respondent No. 3.”

2. The principal grievance which was raised was with respect to the

claim for regularisation and for the payment of salaries and other benefits at

par with other employees of aided and recognized institutions.

Undisputedly it is the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973¹

which would govern. When the writ petition was initially entertained on 20

May 2015, a learned Judge of the Court proceeded to pass the following

order: -

“1. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that issue in the present

case is fully covered in favour of the petitioners in terms of the

judgment passed by this Court in the case of Army Public School &

Anr. Vs. Narendra Singh Nain & Anr. in W.P.(C) No. 1439/2013

decided on 30.8.2013, and wherein it has been held that the

contractual employees after the third year of service will stand

regularized if their appointments were originally not for administrative

exigency under Rule 105(3) of the Delhi School Education Act &

Rules, 1973. Narendra Singh Nain's case (supra) has been thereafter

1the Act

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000767

W.P.(C) 4947/2015

Page 3 of 14

followed in a series of judgments by this Court and those judgments

are referred to in the judgment recently delivered by this Court in the

case of Renu Barrot Vs. Director of Education & Ors. in W.P.(C)

No.6180/2013 decided on 27.4.2015.

2. It is argued that t