Rekha Pasricha vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan And Others

Aradhana Johri, Member (A)

The applicant Smt. Rekha Pasricha was posted in Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Delhi Cantt but was transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2, Hussainpur (RCF) vide order dated 19.06.2014. She filed O.A No. 2099/2014 against this order in which this Tribunal passed orders on 24.06.2014 that status-quo be maintained for a period of one week. This order was extended from time to time. Ultimately, the O.A was allowed vide order dated 20.02.2015 and the transfer order is dated 19.06.2014 was set aside. It was also recorded in the order that the applicant had no objection if she is transferred to any of the KVS at Gurgaon, Manesar, Chhawla Camp and Noida etc. and the respondents may consider posting her to any of the schools after the current academic session is over.

The applicant has cited the case in O.A No.4563/2013-Bhagwanti Yadav Vs. KVS wherein the intervening period between the regional transfer and its modification was treated as extended joining time and has claimed that she is entitled to the same benefit. She has sought the following reliefs :-

Relief (s) Sought :

(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 10.06.2016 and 02.02.2016 (Annexure A/1 & A/2) declaring to the effect the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularize the intervening period between 24.06.2014 to 26.07.2015 as on duty for all purposes including the pay and allowances.

(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to fix the pay of the applicant after granting due increment as on 01.07.2014 and 01.07.2015 after regularisation of the intervening period between 24.06.2014 to 26.07.2015 as on duty with all the consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances with interest.

(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation."

The respondents department issued orders dated 16.07.2015 by which they modified the earlier transfer order dated 19.06.2014 which reads as under :-

"Transfer Modification Order

The transfer of Smt. Rekha Pasricha, PGT (Commerce) ordered in public interest vide KVS (HQ) transfer order dated 19.06.2014 from KV No. 1 Delhi Cantt. to KV No. 2 Hussainpur read with memorandum dated 17.06.2015 from KV No. 1 Delhi Cantt. to KV Pitampura (2nd Shift ) to Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1 Gurgaon, on her request with immediate effect in compliance with order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the Hon'ble CAT, PB, New Delhi in OA No. 2099/2014 filed by Smt. Rekha Pasricha, PGT (Commerce).

She is entitled for transfer benefits as per rules.

This issues with the approval of the competent authority."

The applicant joined her duties in compliance with this order. The present dispute pertains to treatment of the period from 24.06.2014 till 26.07.2015. It is the contention of the applicant that this should be treated as extended duty. The respondents on the other hand have directed her vide order No. F.32029/2015-16/KVS/(GGN) 11656 dated 02.02.2016 issued by Dy. Commissioner to apply for leave of kind due for this period. It is the contention of the applicant that on 24.06.2014, this Tribunal awarded a status-quo and at that point of time, she was still working in KVS No. 1. Therefore, as per orders of the Tribunal she should be considered as continued to be working there. On the other hand, the respondents contended that she was already relieved by the time this Tribunal ordered a status-quo and therefore, the status-quo here meant that she was relieved from KVS-I, Delhi Cantt. Her regular service is only counted from the date she joined KVS at Gurgaon and was accordingly asked to apply for leave of kind due for the period 24.06.2014 to 26.07.2015.

Heard Mr. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. U. N. Singh, learned counsel for respondents.

Certain factors have to be considered before arriving at any conclusion as to when the whole matter is to be looked at in light of the fact that ultimately the transfer order is dated 10.05.2016 was modified vide order dated 02.02.2016 and the applicant was posted at a place of her choice i.e. KVS Gurgaon. This Tribunal has passed orders in O.A. No.2099/2014 dated 20.02.2015 setting aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2014 and stating that the respondents may consider posting to any nearby schools after the current academic session is over. Though, none of the parties have clarified as to when the session is over, normally it is over in the month of March. Therefore, there does appear to be an undue delay in passing of the modified transfer order which took place on 16.07.2015, the benefit of which must go to the applicant. Since it was no fault of her that the transfer modification order was delayed. Another factor to be considered in mind is the coincidence of being relieved on 23.06.2014, just one day before the order for status-quo were passed by this Tribunal on 24.06.2014. No doubt learned counsel for the respondents opposed the interim stay but, it was nonetheless directed by this Tribunal to maintain status-quo qua the applicant.

In O.A No. 4563/2013 Smt. Bhagwanti Yadav Vs. KVS (supra), this Tribunal referred to the clarification regarding regularisation of the intervening period vide KVS letter No.F-9/1/2005-06/KVS (Estt. II) dated 21.11.2005, which treated the intervening period as 'spent on duty'. The applicant has filed clarification of KVS regarding regularisation of the intervening period letter No.F.1-1/2005-06/KVS (Estt. II) which reads as follows :-

"2. Whether intervening period of a teacher of immunity category who was relieved on account of his/her transfer and later on his/her transfer order is modified on request with posting at the same station but other than the previous Vidyalaya may be regularised by treating him/her on duty.

For all kinds of irregular transfer, modified at request or otherwise and posted to the new place, such connections may be treated as in public interest and the intervening period may be treated as in public interest and the intervening period may be treated as extended joining time.

From a perusal of the above, it is clear that where a regular transfer is regularised or otherwise and the applicant posted to the new place such connections may be treated in public interest and the intervening period may be treated as extended joining time.

In light of the above, this O.A is allowed. Respondents are directed to treat the intervening period as extended joining time. No order as to costs.

Pending M.A(s) if any, are disposed of accordingly.