Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Ritika Sharma vs Dav Public Primary School & Ors on 22 January, 2021

Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Sanjeev Narula

$~13
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      LPA 32/2021
       RITIKA SHARMA                                            ..... Appellant
                          Through:     Mr. Khagesh B. Jha and Ms. Shikha
                                       Sharma Bagga, Advocates.

                          versus

       DAV PUBLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL & ORS.         ..... Respondents
                     Through: Ms. Garima Prashad, Standing
                              Counsel for NDMC (R-3) with
                              Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
               ORDER

% 22.01.2021 CM APPLs. 2436-37/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.

2. The applications are disposed of.

3. The present appeal impugns the order dated 5th January, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellant, on the ground of being barred by delay and laches.

4. Briefly stated, on 1st November, 2007, the Petitioner was appointed to the post of PRT, with respondent No. 1, a private unaided recognized school.

She tendered her resignation sometime in the month of February, 2019 and was consequently relieved vide relieving order dated 20.04.2019. In December 2020, after nearly one and a half years of leaving the service, she made a representation, alleging that the school had denied her lawful dues. Then, she approached this court by filing the writ petition alleging that she was paid salary in a scale much below her entitlement as a PRT and without any further benefits such as DA, HRA, TA, MACP, etc. In the aforesaid background, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches, inter-alia, observing as under:-

"4. Suffice, it would be to state that the petitioner having been appointed as PRT in the year 2007, i.e. thirteen (13) years back and continued to work though on a scale without any benefits, surely cannot agitate the grievance now, that too after she has tendered her resignation on personal grounds. The cause of action if at all accrued, while she was working in the respondent No.1 school.

5. This petition filed in the year 2021 is hit by delay and latches. This Court is not persuaded to entertain the present petition filed by the petitioner in the facts of this case."

5. Mr. Khagesh Jha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Learned Single judge failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent school has denied the Appellant her lawful salary and other entitlements as guaranteed under Rule 107 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 read with the notifications of Central government relating to Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, adopted by the Delhi government for similarly situated teachers working in government schools. He further submits that the Learned Single Judge has erred in not appreciating the fact that the claim in the petition included arrears that had accrued during 3 years preceding the LPA 32/2021 Page 2 of 4 filing of the petition. The same should not have been denied to the Appellant especially considering the fact that the Appellant was not in the position to bargain with the school. He emphasises that in a somewhat similar situation, this Court in the case of R.K. Jodhka and Ors. v. Director of Education and Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6929, entertained the writ petition and also granted relief identical to the one sought by the Appellant. Thus, the learned Single Judge should not have rejected the petition on the ground of delay and laches.

6. We have considered the contentions urged by Mr. Khagesh Jha. In writ jurisdiction, the Limitation Act, 1963 does not strictly apply, but its principles do apply by application of the doctrine of delay and laches. Thus, in cases where there is unexplained and inordinate delay, the court may refuse to grant relief. The facts, as they emerge in the present petition, do indicate gross delay and laches on the part of the appellant. The factual position remains uncontroverted. Indisputably, till the filing of the representation with the respondents, the appellant had indeed not made any grievance in respect of her service conditions and especially regarding the benefits of the pay scale. This demonstrates that there has been a complete lack of initiative on the part of the petitioner to take remedies under law in respect of the reliefs which she sought in the petition. Since there is an inordinate delay on the part of the appellant, we are unable to find any perversity in the discretion exercised by the Learned Single Judge. It must be remembered that the decision of the Court to entertain or not entertain a particular action under its writ jurisdiction, particularly having regard to the nature of dispute in the instant case, is fundamentally discretionary. The LPA 32/2021 Page 3 of 4 Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction has to take into consideration the entire conspectus of the case and the reasoning assigned for dismissing the writ petition is quite reasonable and logical. We may also state that while exercising our jurisdiction under the Letters Patent Appeal, the scope of interference is limited and since we perceive no infirmity or manifest illegality or patent error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge, we find no reason to interfere with their exercise of discretion in refusing to entertain the writ petition.

7. We may further add that this is also a settled position in law that a writ jurisdiction cannot to be invoked for recovery of dues, particularly if the same are otherwise barred by limitation, and it is only a violation of a right which this Court can settle under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant always has other efficacious remedies for recovery of her salary dues, if any. Therefore, while we decline to entertain the present appeal, we may only clarify that the appellant would be at liberty to avail her remedies under the civil proceedings for the recovery of dues, if any, with respect to the period which is not barred by limitation.

8. There is no merit in the present appeal, hence dismissed.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J SANJEEV NARULA, J JANUARY 22, 2021/nk LPA 32/2021 Page 4 of 4