Delhi District Court
Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs Glory Public School on 13 July, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR LAKA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - 03, SOUTH EAST,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No. 9342/16
In the matter of:
Dr. Anuradha Goswami
W/o Shri Ashok Kumar,
R/o C-14, Saurabh Vihar, New Delhi
..... Plaintiff
versus
1. Glory Public School
Through its Management
Run by Lakshmi Shiksha Society,
Pocket-8Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076
2. Smt. Kiran Garg,
Teacher, Glory Public School,
R/o A-542, Block-A, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
3. Kalpana Sharma
Principal, Glory Public School,
R/o 364, Gali Chand Wali, Paharganj, New Delhi
4. Bharat Gaur,
Teacher, Glory Public School,
B-168, Ram Prastha Ghaziabad, UP
... Defendants
Date of Institution of suit : 23.01.2016
Arguments concluded on : 07.07.2020
Date of decision : 10.07.2020
Result : Partly decreed
SUIT FOR DAMAGES OF RS. 10 LAKHS
JUDGMENT
Suit in brief The present action was brought by plaintiff claiming damages of Rs.10 lakhs along with interest against the defendants. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff is a physically challenged person (orthopedic) possessing a degree in Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) in Hindi and defendant no.1 engaged her as a teacher in defendant no.1 school since 01.07.2013. It is claimed that initially the plaintiff was asked to take 34 classes in a week which she had diligently taken and the school management was very happy with the technique and performance of the plaintiff and she was even given very good remarks in the assessment. However subsequently, the plaintiff became pregnant and informed the said fact to the Principal (D3) of defendant no.1 and requested to give light work as she was already suffering from physical disability. But the school authorities and the Principal started compelling her to leave her services. It is claimed that when plaintiff did not give her resignation, the school management and the Principal started to create one or the other problems just to harass and give trouble to her. It is alleged that they deliberately assigned the plaintiff classes at upper floors of the school despite knowing the fact that the plaintiff is a physically challenged person. It is further specifically alleged that the defendants also assigned extra works to the plaintiff due to which, the plaintiff had to stay after the school hours and it became a daily routine.
2. The plaintiff also claimed that on 22.11.2013, she was assigned CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 2 of 23 duties in SA-I (Exam) where she had to perform duties from 8.00 AM to 11.05 AM and during this period, the plaintiff was not allowed to sit or even drinks water and deliberately no chair was kept in the room where the plaintiff was assigned the exam duty. The plaintiff also explained that generally two teachers are appointed for senior classes invigilation but the plaintiff was appointed alone for invigilation duty in one big room due to which she suffered swelling and pain in her hands and foots for continuously standing and she was not even allowed to sit in the staff room by locking it. It is alleged that on 23.11.2013 (the next day), the plaintiff was not able to attend the school due to her health conditions and accordingly, she informed the school management about it and on the very same day, she contacted a doctor who advised her for doing light work and to remain stress free and have bed rest but during this time, the school management was calling the plaintiff for attending examination duty and she was forced to give an application for leave along with her medical documents.
3. It is further alleged that when the plaintiff went to give leave application to the defendant no.3, she was pushed outside the room and she was told to get out from the school. Thereafter, the plaintiff joined back her services in School on 26.11.2013 and requested the school management to give classes at ground floor but the defendants deliberately with their ulterior motive gave classes on the top floor of the school and the plaintiff was asked to take extra classes on that day.
4. It is further alleged that on 30.11.2013 around 10.30 AM, the CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 3 of 23 plaintiff was called by the Principal in her office room to give resignation and leave the school and when the plaintiff asked the reason, the Principal of the school got infuriated and pushed the plaintiff out of the room due to which she fell on the floor and suffered injuries and started bleedings and she suffered severe pain in her stomach. The plaintiff sought for help but no one came forward for her help and thereafter, she called on 100 number and an FIR was registered at Sarita Vihar Police Station. Thereafter, the plaintiff tried to communicate with the school authority about her job status and about her pending salary but no clear answer was given. It is further claimed that the plaintiff got the information about her termination on 30.11.2013 through RTI application. Thereafter, the plaintiff made a complaint against such illegality, misbehavior, harassment and humiliation to the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities on 25.11.2013 and after passing order on the said complaint, the pending salary of the plaintiff was released by the school authority. It is also alleged that due to the assault and stress, there were complications during the birth of child and she had to remain admitted in AIIMS for 22 days before delivery. It is claimed that due to illegal termination and the stigma of termination, the plaintiff could not get any employment and therefore, she is entitled to all the service benefits as per law till her retirement.
Defence in brief
5. The defendants contested the case and file their joint written statement wherein it is stated that the present suit is not maintainable as the alleged damages claimed in the present suit are exorbitant and CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 4 of 23 without supporting any document to justify such damages. It is further stated that the present suit is not maintainable as the jurisdiction of this court is barred as per the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 being a dispute between a teacher and the school authority and as per the said Act, the suit is also time barred beyond the prescribed period of three months for preferring an appeal before the Tribunal from the date of communication of order of dismissal. It is further stated that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has not sought any declaration thereby declaring any act of the defendant as illegal and consequently the plaintiff cannot claim any damages/compensation.
6. It is also claimed that this court has no jurisdiction to grant any maternity benefits because the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 provides a mechanism for claiming such benefit from a competent authority under the said Act. It is further submitted that the plaintiff was employed to make out the gap for teaching the students and it was a matter of urgency. The plaintiff was allowed to teach though she did not fulfill the minimum requirement of having B.Ed degree. The question of terminating her services hardly arose when her appointment was for a temporary period which can be cancelled at any time. It is alleged that the plaintiff was not 100% physically fit and she even suppressed the said material information and she had unlawfully procured the said employment. It is also claimed that the plaintiff got registered an FIR No. 450/2013 on false grounds just to harass the defendants and she is not entitled to any relief.
CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 5 of 23Issues and trial
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 10.02.2017:
1. Whether employment of plaintiff with defendant no. 1 (Glory Public School) was of permanent nature or plaintiff was employed on temporary/contractual basis? OPP
2. Whether this Court is competent to grant any maternity benefit under the Maternity Benefits Act as claimed in the present suit? OPP
3. Whether jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit and to grant any relief is barred under the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act 1973? OPD
4. Whether suit is barred by limitation as per the provisions of Delhi School Education Act? OPD
5. Whether plaint discloses any cause of action against defendant no. 2 Smt. Kiran Garg and defendant no. 4 Bharati Gaur? OPP
6. Whether plaintiff concealed her disability from defendant no. 1? OPD
7. Whether plaintiff is entitled to claim damages to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs? OPP
8. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
8. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined herself and other officials witnesses to prove the medical record and the FIR. The CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 6 of 23 defendants examined three witnesses, namely, DW1 Smt. Bharti Gaur, DW2 Smt. Kiran Garg and DW3 Smt, Kalpana.
9. On account of countrywide lockdown due to spread of Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic disease, the usual functioning of the court was prevented. As per the internal Circular No.8188- 8348/DJ/Covid19 Lockdown/ Pronouncements/2020 dated 03.05.2020 issued by Ld. District & Sessions Judge, South East conveying directions issued by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi through letter No.R- 123/RG/DHC/2020 dated 30.04.2020, final arguments to be heard and judgments to be pronounced by preponing/rescheduling the cases after intimation to the counsel through tele-communication. Accordingly the present case was taken up through video conferencing. I have heard Ms. Namita Roy, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Praveen Mahajan, Ld. counsel for the defendant at length through video conferencing on CISCO Webex App.
REASONS FOR DECISION Issue no.1. Whether employment of plaintiff with defendant no. 1 (Glory Public School) was of permanent nature or plaintiff was employed on temporary/contractual basis? OPP
10. The plaintiff joined the defendant school as a teacher in July, 2013 and some dispute arose between the plaintiff and the management of the school in November, 2013. The plaintiff claimed that she was a permanent employee whereas the defendant alleged that she was engaged on a temporary basis as the regular teacher had CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 7 of 23 gone on maternity leave. None of the parties produced on record any formal appointment letter of the plaintiff to show the terms and conditions of her employment. In the written statement, it has been specifically mentioned that the plaintiff was appointed on the basis of oral arrangement and even the DWs also asserted that the plaintiff did not sign the contract document. In the absence of any appointment letter, it is highly improbable that an offer for permanent employment would have been given by the defendant to the plaintiff. In the leave application of the plaintiff, she herself stated that she should be allowed to work in the defendant's school for the period for which she was engaged i.e. from July 2013 to March 2014. From the said admission and the categorical statement of the DWs, it is proved on record that the employment of the plaintiff was purely on temporary or contractual basis with the defendant. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Issue no.2. Whether this Court is competent to grant any maternity benefit under the Maternity Benefits Act as claimed in the present suit? OPP
11. In the present suit, the plaintiff has claimed the maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 but the counsel for the defendant has taken a specific plea in the written statement that the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of any such benefit because she is not eligible for the same and secondly, the said relief can be claimed from a Competent Authority as has been constituted under the said Act only by filing a representation as per the mechanisms provided in the said CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 8 of 23 Act. The counsel for the defendant has also drawn my attention to Section 5 of the said Act and asserted that as per said provision, the maternity benefit is to be given to an employee who had worked for not less than 80 days during the last one year of service preceding the date of delivery of the child.
12. From the tenure of the plaintiff in the defendant's school i.e. from July, 2013 to November, 2013 (or upto December 2013), it is clear that she did not or could not complete the minimum required period of one year and, therefore, she is not eligible to claim the said benefit. Moreover, when a specific authority and mechanism has been provided under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, the plaintiff had to resort to the remedies available under the said Act instead of claiming the said amount from this Court whose jurisdiction stands expressly or impliedly barred as per Section 9 of the CPC.
13. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff relied on the case of Bharti Gupta Vs. Rail India Technical and Economical Services Ltd. (Rites) and Ors. W.P. (C) No. 4798/2003 decided on 09.08.2005 by High Court of Delhi wherein it was observed that "The petitioner, a qualified Architect, was initially appointed by the respondents and was offered contractual appointment for a period of six months on 8.10.1997. Her contract was renewed after expiry of the six months period and she continued in the employment of respondent till 13th December, 2000, therefore she was granted the said maternity benefit." From the perusal of the said judgment, it is seen that in that CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 9 of 23 case the petitioner had complete the minimum required period of service as per Section 5 of the said Act whereas in the present case, this is not the case herein. Accordingly the said judgment is not applicable to the factual matrix of the case.
14. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further relied on the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and Ors., S.L.P. (C) No. 12797 of 1998 decided on 08.03.2000 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and claimed maternity benefit on the basis of observations of the said case. From the perusal of this case, it was revealed that the petitioners were employed on temporary basis but they into the service for around 10 years, therefore, the maternity benefit was granted after directing the concerned agency to pass an order to extend the benefits of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 to such muster roll female employees who were in continuous service of the management for three years or more and who fulfilled the conditions set out in section 5 of the Act.
15. In the instant case, the employment contract of the plaintiff was only for six months and therefore, she did not quality the minimum required conditions of Section 5 of the said Act, which is reproduced as under:.
"Sec. 5. Right to payment of maternity benefit- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every woman shall be entitled to, and her employer shall be liable for, the payment of maternity benefit at the rate of the average daily wage for the period of her actual absence, that is to say, the period immediately preceding the day of her delivery, the actual day of her delivery and any period CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 10 of 23 immediately following that day. Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-section, the average daily wage means the average of the woman's wages payable to her for the days on which she has worked during the period of three calendar months immediately preceding the date from which she absents herself on account of maternity, the minimum rates of wages fixed or revised under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 or ten rupees, whichever is the highest.
(2) No woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless she has actually worked in an establishment of the employer from whom she claims maternity benefit, for a period of not less than eighty days in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery."
16. In the light of aforesaid observations, this court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the maternity benefit. Accordingly, the Issue No.2 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. However, since the counsel for the plaintiff has specifically argued that in the instant case, the plaintiff has not only claimed the maternity benefits but also claimed damages on account of harassment and mental agony, therefore, this decision will not affect the said relief of harassment and mental agony.
Issue no. 3. Whether jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit and to grant any relief is barred under the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act 1973? OPD And Issue no.4. Whether suit is barred by limitation as per the provisions of Delhi School Education Act? OPD
17. The Ld. counsel for the defendant has contended that the CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 11 of 23 present suit is barred by limitation as the period of filing a representation has been provided 3 months in the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. Further it is argued that the plaintiff should have raised her grievances before the designated authority as constituted under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 instead of filing the present suit before this Court.
18. The Section 25 of the said Act bars the jurisdiction of civil court. For a ready reference, the said Section 25 is reproduced as under:
Sec. 25. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred.--No civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter in relation to which the Administrator or the Director or any other person authorised by the Administrator or Director or any other officer or authority appointed or specified by or under this Act, is empowered by or under this Act to exercise any power, and no injunction shall be granted by any civil court in respect of anything which is done or intended to be done by or under this Act.
19. From the perusal of the said Section, it is seen that the jurisdiction of civil court is barred only where the subject matter falls within the competence and jurisdiction of the Director, specified authority or officer as appointed under the said Act. From the perusal of the entire Act, this court does not find that any such authority has been conferred power to decide the issue of damages. In the instant case, the plaintiff did not raise the dispute with regard to any due salary and rather she has claimed damages on account of harassment and mental agony and the said reliefs in the opinion of this court are not the CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 12 of 23 subject matter within the domain of such authorities and, therefore, this Court holds that the present suit is maintainable before this Court.
20. Moreover, no termination letter was ever issued to the plaintiff and the DWs simply deposed that since the plaintiff had filed an FIR and her services were temporary which expired soon, nothing was done. As such, the termination of the plaintiff cannot be said to be specific or express.
21. As regards the issue of limitation, it is seen that the plaintiff was allegedly terminated in November, 2013 and the period of limitation for claiming the damages is 3 years as per the Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and the present suit was filed in January, 2016, therefore, the present suit is within the period of limitation for claiming damages and for that purpose, the limitation as provided in the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 cannot be looked into. Accordingly, the aforesaid issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue No.6. Whether plaintiff concealed her disability from defendant no. 1? OPD
22. In the written statement, it has been specifically claimed that the plaintiff concealed the factum of her disability at the time of her appointment in the defendant's school. There is nothing on record that the plaintiff has been terminated or expelled in the instant case on account of concealment of the said fact. Also the plaintiff was not CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 13 of 23 engaged for any specific category (reserved post for Persons with Disability) and rather she was selected by seeing her Ph.D qualification only for a temporary period. Moreover, the movement (walking) position of the plaintiff was already within the knowledge of the Principal of the school and, therefore, the said known fact did not require any specific intimation by the plaintiff to the defendant. Therefore, the said objection is not material. Accordingly, the said issue is decided by holding that it does not affect the merits of the case.
Issue No.5. Whether plaint discloses any cause of action against defendant no. 2 Smt. Kiran Garg and defendant no. 4 Bharati Gaur? OPP And Issue No.7. Whether plaintiff is entitled to claim damages to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs? OPP (Issue No.5 and 7 are interconnected, therefore, they are being decided together.)
23. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiff was not eligible to be appointed as a regular teacher since she was not holding a B.Ed. Degree which is the mandatory requirement as per the guidelines issued by the Directorate of Education. From the evidence produced on record, it is established that the plaintiff was appointed as temporary teacher for six months on the basis of her degree of Ph.D and same was found satisfactory. Even the defendant no.3 (Principal) stated that the plaintiff was appointed in the school keeping in mind the urgent need of the students and that for appointment of a temporary teacher, no such requirement is mandatory CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 14 of 23 and there is a provision for giving six months' time for obtaining the B.Ed. Degree. Accordingly, in the light of the aforesaid evidence, the non-eligibility of the plaintiff for want of B.Ed degree becomes insignificant.
24. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the defendants that in criminal proceedings, two accused persons were already discharged at the time of consideration of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and the remaining accused was acquitted in the final judgment. Therefore, he asserted that the said complaint as well as present suit are baseless.
25. It is a settled proposition of law that the trials of a criminal offence is conducted on the basis of facts and material which are produced before the criminal court while the civil suit is decided as per the facts and material produced before the civil court. A person can avail all the remedies available under law by filing representation, criminal complaint as well as civil suit. Further the principle of appreciation of evidence in the criminal case is strict which is based on the theory that the prosecution is required to prove a charge beyond all reasonable doubts whereas in civil proceedings, the principle of preponderance of probabilities apply. Therefore, this court is not required to consider the criminal proceedings or their outcome in the present suit which is a distinct claim for damages.
26. The plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of harassment and mental agony by claiming that she was appointed as CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 15 of 23 a teacher in the school of the defendant. But despite the fact that she was a physically challenged person and pregnant woman, the defendants harassed her on one ground or the other with an intention to compel her to resign. The plaintiff also specifically deposed that she informed the status of her pregnancy to the defendants in time and prayed for giving light work but once the news of her pregnancy became known to the school authority and the principal, they compelled ask her to leave the school. It is also deposed that when the plaintiff did not give her resignation, the school management as well as the Principal started creating problems.
27. It is specifically deposed that plaintiff was deliberately assigned classes at the upper floors, given extra work and was compelled to stay after school hours despite knowing the fact that plaintiff was a physically challenged person as well as a pregnant woman. She further narrated that she was assigned duty on 22.11.2013 (SA-I) where she had to perform duties from 8:00 A.M. to 11:05 A.M by standing without any chair, which put extra pressure and stress upon the plaintiff causing swellings.
28. The defendant no.3 admitted in her cross-examination that she came to know about the pregnancy of the plaintiff in October, 2013. When specific request was made to give light work and not to give teaching schedule at the first floor of the school, the defendant no.3 should be more accommodative to such requests especially when there is no allegation from the side of defendants that the plaintiff ever CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 16 of 23 avoided her duties.
29. The factum of harassment is evident from the fact that the plaintiff was given classes for ground floor as well as first floor and in her cross-examination, the plaintiff specifically disclosed that she was given around 50% classes at first floor and thereafter no suggestion was given by the counsel for the defendants to counter the said assertion of the plaintiff.
30. The plaintiff also specifically disclosed that she was made to sit for late hours in the school and she was given extra work to perform after duty hours. Said fact has been proved from the attendance sheet which specifically find mentioned that the plaintiff was made to sit late on various dates which are given as under:
Date Time
20.11.2013 3.00 PM
26.11.2013 2.45 PM
27.11.2013 2.31 PM
28.11.2013 2.51 PM
29.11.2013 3.00 PM
31. The medical condition of the plaintiff is also proved from the factum that after attending duty on 22.11.2013 (SA-I), she fell ill and got swellings. This is also proved from the fact that she had to take leave on medical ground for next 2-3 days. Although the defendants CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 17 of 23 specifically took a stand that the plaintiff was never harassed but it is admitted in cross-examination by the DWs that on 22.11.2013, the plaintiff was given duties for two continuous periods (each period of 35 minutes). When the plaintiff was a pregnant woman as well as physically challenged person (orthopedically), a more considerate and sympathetic approach should have been adopted by the School authority and its Principal. The plaintiff complained that she was made to stand on 22.11.2013 from 08.00 to 11.00 AM continuously without providing any chair and no reliever was provided to her even to go to washroom or to drink water. She also claimed that even the staff room was locked. The bottom remarks on the Arrangement Duty Chart (Ex.DW1/8) finds mentioned "Anuradha Goswami has been relieved from her duty due to health condition". The aforesaid facts collectively proved callous and heartless approach on the part of the defendants not only for the plaintiff (who was a pregnant and physically challenged person) but even for other normal teachers who are put in such situation.
32. It is pleaded by the defendants that the job of the teacher is to stand for long hours. This shows their old mental attitude. When a teacher attends his or her duty for long hours, he or she is entitled to be given a break for drinking water or to attend the natural urges. Teaching is a noble profession and teachers should be respected and given all sorts of basic human facilities. Providing a chair in the class room or examination hall and a reliever will not cause any prejudice to the said profession of teaching and would rather make the atmosphere CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 18 of 23 more suitable for teacher as well as students. If a teacher gets irritated due to lack of such basic facilities, it naturally affects the students too. If the school authority has no reliever, then they should have employed adequate staff.
33. The counsel for the defendant next argued that there were various complaints against the plaintiff made by the students and copy of the same were placed on record. From the record, it is evident that the plaintiff was never terminated formally after holding an inquiry which is one of the cardinal principles of natural justice. The DWs simply deposed that after filing of FIR by the plaintiff, no termination proceeding was initiated against the plaintiff since she was hired only for a period of six months. The alleged incident as mentioned in the FIR took place on 30.11.2013 whereas as per the defendant's case the plaintiff was appointed for a period of six period which lasted in December, 2013 and therefore, at least some inquiry or formal proceedings by giving written memo, explanation or notice should have been conducted.
34. It is also worth noting that none of the complaints have been proved on record by examining the author or signatory of such complaint as per Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover, the Principal/DW-3 specifically disclosed that a teacher diary used to be maintained and she used to write her remarks/comments after every 15 days but she admitted that there was no mention about any such complaints against the plaintiff in such CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 19 of 23 teacher's diary. It is also observed that the dates of said complaints were much prior to the date of incident of 30.11.2013, but no memo, notice or explanation has ever been given to the plaintiff by the defendants. Under these circumstances, the reliance on the said complaints is found misconceived, unbelievable and afterthoughts.
35. The Ld. counsel for the defendant also argued that the plaintiff had earlier approached the Commissioner of Persons with Disability and as per the order passed by the said authority dated 07.01.2014, the plaintiff was already granted the salary upto the month of December, 2013 for which period she was engaged temporarily and, therefore, there is no other loss subsisting in favour of the plaintiff. It is reiterated that the present suit has been filed not only for claiming service benefits but for claiming damages on account of harassment and mental agony. The plaintiff has not claimed any salary for the month of November and December 2013. Therefore the grant of salary by the said Commissioner is in no way connected with the reliefs as prayed in the present suit.
36. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the defendant No.3 (Principal) and the defendant No.1 (School) are liable to pay damages to the plaintiff for her harassment, physical as well as mental. The plaintiff has claimed the damages of Rs.10 lakhs. It has already been held that the plaintiff is not entitled for maternity benefits being not eligible for the same. She has claimed the amount till the period of her retirement but it is not permissible CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 20 of 23 under law because she was engaged purely on contract basis for a temporary period of 6 months.
37. As regard the mental harassment or physical harassment, the counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff deserves to be awarded the maximum damages whereas the counsel for the defendants contended that in the absence of clear quantification of injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff, she is not entitled to claim the said amount. It is a settled position of law that the mental agony cannot be quantified in terms of money and it depends on case to case. The plaintiff was a Ph.D. holder and her conduct was also found very good for teaching in the defendant's school. Therefore, she deserves a suitable amount for making to suffer mental torture, agony and harassment.
38. As regards her physical harassment, the illness of the plaintiff has been proved from the bottom remarks on the Arrangement Duty Chart (Ex.DW1/8) which finds mentioned "Anuradha Goswami has been relieved from her duty due to health condition". It has been further proved from the content of leave application which shows that on account of attending the duty for continuous two periods on 22.11.2013 she suffered swellings and had to take leave for next 2-3 days. The plaintiff also claimed that she remained admitted for 22 days in AIIMS due to complications before her delivery due to stress given by the defendants. The said long period seems unusual.
CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 21 of 2339. Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the plaintiff is awarded damages of Rs.1 lakh with pendente lite interest which will be payable by the defendant No.1 and 3 jointly or severely. This Court does not find any specific evidence to fix liability of the defendant Nos.2 and 4. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any amount. The aforesaid issues are decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 and 3.
Issue no.8. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
40. Keeping in mind the circumstance of the case, this court does not deem it fit to award any interest for the period prior to the filing of the suit. However, the plaintiff is awarded a reasonable interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the amount of Rs. 1,00,000. This issue is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.
Conclusion and relief
41. In the light of my aforesaid findings, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed for recovery of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization of the amount payable by the defendant No.1 and 3 jointly or severely to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also awarded costs of CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 22 of 23 the suit as per rules which will be reflected in the decree sheet against defendant No.1 and 3. The defendant No.2 and 4 are not liable to pay any amount. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Thereafter file be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the the open court on 13.07.2020 (Naresh Kumar Laka) Additional District Judge-03 South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS No. 9342/16 Dr. Anuradha Goswami vs. Glori Public School & Ors. Page 23 of 23