Dibban Lal Sharma vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant retired as Vice Principal from the Directorate of Education, GNCTD on 30.06.2016, on attaining the age of superannuation. He applied for re-employment soon after retirement. Complaining that his case was not being considered, though he was otherwise eligible, he filed OA No. 846/2017. The OA was disposed of on 22.05.2019. Since the re-employment, even where it is provided for, was only for a period of 2 years after retirement, and the period had expired by the time the OA was taken up for hearing, the applicant, through his counsel, conceded that he is not praying for re-employment, but confined his grievance only to the so-called consequential benefits on the premise that the denial of re-employment was wrong. The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider his case accordingly.

Through an order dated 04.11.2019, the respondents rejected the claim of the applicant by stating the reasons. It was mentioned that he was not found fit for grant of re-employment. The same is challenged in this OA.

We heard Shri KK Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents at the stage of admission.

The facility of re-employment in the schools of Delhi is under limited circumstances, such as existence of workload and willingness & ability of the retired teachers. It is not governed by any set of rules and the entire exercise is in the realm of discretion. Even where re-employment is made, it is for a period, not exceeding 2 years from the date of retirement. The applicant retired from service on 30.06.2016 and it was only in the year 2017 that he filed the OA, complaining that he was not re-employed. By the time the OA was taken up for hearing, two years' period had expired. Obviously, in that view of the matter, the relief of re-employment was not pressed.

Paras 6 and 7 of the order dated 22.05.2019 in OA No. 846/2017 read as under:-

"6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances under the instructions of the applicant, the learned counsel for the applicant does not press for grant of re-employment after attaining the age of superannuation. However, he prays for direction to the respondents to re-consider his claim of re-employment, rejected vide dated 23.08.2016 and in case, on such reconsideration, the applicant is found fit for re-employment after his attaining the age of superannuation, the applicant should be considered for arrears of pay, etc. in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mithilesh Swami (supra).

However, we find that applicant has not pleaded for grant of arrear, etc. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of and the matter is remitted back to the Respondent No. 2 to consider the claim of the applicant about his re-employment in view of the certificates of professional fitness referred to above, afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case on such reconsideration, the applicant is found that he was fit to be re-employed, the respondents shall pass speaking order about consequential benefits to him in accordance with relevant rules, instruction and judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Mithilesh Swami (Supra) within eight weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.

In compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal, the respondents passed an order dated 04.11.2018, stating as to how the claim of the applicant cannot be accepted.

Having conceded before the Tribunal that he would not press for re-employment, the applicant filed this OA, not only challenging the order dated 04.11.2018, but also for a direction to the respondents to re-employ him. He has also prayed for compensation.

Once the applicant does not have a right to insist on re-employment, and he has crossed the age limit, the question of his being re-employed does not arise. The compensation is claimed on the premise that the non-selection of the applicant for re-employment in the year 2016 was wrong. A finding in this behalf could have been recorded only when the OA is filed at the relevant point of time and it is heard before the expiry of the term of re-employment. The applicant is not able to place before us, any basis for his claim. We are not inclined to grant relief to the applicant.

Accordingly, the OA is dismissed.

Pending  MA,  if  any,  also  stands  disposed  of.

There shall be no order as to costs.