Citation No.2022/DHC/004850

W.P.(C)10523/2019 Page 1 of 10

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 14.11.2022

+

W.P.(C) 10523/2019, CM APPL.43562/2019, 43563/2019,

8567/2020, 12862/2022

SMT. ANJNA LUTHRA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Nandni Sahni and Mr. Sachin

Bandooni, Advs.

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS...... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Addl. Standing

Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Adv.

for R-1 & 2.

Mr. R.M. Sinha and Mr. A.M. Sinha,

Advs. for R-3 & 4 with Ms Nandini

Harsh, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)

1.

The petitioner, who was an employee of respondent no. 3-school,

having joined the said school in 1986, has approached this Court seeking the

following reliefs:

Digitally Signed

By:GARIMA MADAN

Signing Date:15.11.2022

17:32:36

Signature Not Verified

Citation No.2022/DHC/004850

W.P.(C)10523/2019 Page 2 of 10

in respondent no.4 school with immediate effect.”

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of

the present petition, the petitioner has superannuated from service on

30.09.2021, and therefore she is confining the present petition only to the

grant of her terminals benefits including leave encashment, gratuity, arrears

of salary towards the amount payable as per the recommendations of the 6^th

and 7^th CPC as also for the differential amount payable to her for the period

between 13.11.2019 to 30.09.2021, when she remained illegally suspended.

Digitally Signed

By:GARIMA MADAN

Signing Date:15.11.2022

17:32:36

Signature Not Verified

Citation No.2022/DHC/004850

W.P.(C)10523/2019 Page 3 of 10

She submits that it is an admitted position that the petitioner was suspended

from service on 13.11.2019 without seeking any prior approval from the

respondent no. 2 and therefore, contends that in view of the decision of the

Apex Court in Raj Kumar vs. Directorate of Education & Another 2016

Vol IV AD (SC) 490, the said suspension has to be treated as non-est. She

also draws my attention to the affidavit filed by the respondent nos.1 & 2-

the Director of Education (DoE), wherein it has been clearly stated that in

terms of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, prior approval of the

DoE is mandatory before termination/suspension of an employee of a

private unaided school. The said affidavit also states that the order

suspending the petitioner having been passed without prior approval from

the DoE, her suspension was illegal and non-est. Consequently, vide orders

dated 25.06.2020, 23.09.2021 and 16.05.2022, the respondent nos.1 & 2

have directed respondent nos.3 & 4 to reinstate the petitioner with all

consequential benefits.

3.

While learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 supports the claim of

the petitioner and submits that since her suspension from service with effect

from 13.11.2019 was illegal and non-est, she would be entitled to receive

full salary for the period from 13.11.2019 to 30.09.2021 on which date she

superannuated, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4

vehemently oppose the writ petition. While not denying that as per the ratio

of the decision dated 13.04.2016 in Raj Kumar (supra), an order of

termination of an employee of unaided private school passed thereafter

without prior approval from the DoE would be bad in law, contends that the

decision in Raj Kumar (supra ) does not lay down the correct law as the

same failed to appreciate the ratio of the decision of the Constitution Bench

Digitally Signed

By:GARIMA MADAN

Signing Date:15.11.2022

17:32:36

Signature Not Verified

Citation No.2022/DHC/004850

W.P.(C)10523/2019