Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Krishan Kumar Kalra vs Secretary (Education) on 26 March, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.2601/2009 Friday, this the 26th day of March 2010 Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Shri Krishan Kumar Kalra s/o late Shri Mehar Chand r/o 1143, Sector 15, part II Gurgaon (Haryana) (TGT Natural Science) Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School No.III Palam Enclave New Delhi (Since retired on 31.8.2008) ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri S C Kalra) Versus 1. Secretary (Education) Govt. of NCT of Delhi Old Secretariat, Delhi 2. Director of Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi Old Secretariat, Delhi 3. Dy. Director of Education (SW-B) Govt. of NCT of Delhi Najafgarh, New Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Jyoti Singh) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri Shanker Raju:
Applicant, who retired on superannuation on 31.8.2008, is aggrieved by an order passed by the respondents on 6.9.2008 rejecting his request for reemployment.
2. Learned counsel for applicant states that all the adverse material taken against him have not been communicated, as such the same cannot be taken into consideration.
3. It is also stated that applicant has rendered unblemished service of 36 years and without communication of adverse remarks. As such, as reemployment is automatic methodology vide Lt. Governors notification dated 29.1.2007 denial would be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that applicant is otherwise fit.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that though reemployment is automatic but the conditions of reemployment are to be followed. Learned counsel refers to order dated 28.2.2007 where the conditions of reemployment have been laid down, which read as follows:-
1. The retiring teachers of the Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi, shall be eligible for consideration for re-employment against clear vacancy upto his/her attaining the age of 62 years. The re-employment will be subject to fitness and vigilance clearance of the retiring teachers, i.e., the pensioner. For physical fitness of retiring teacher, a certificate from authorized medical practitioner is required to be submitted to the Head of School, where the retiring teacher has last served. The professional fitness is required to be assessed by DDE of the concerned District after considering work and conduct report, vigilance clearance and medical certificate submitted by the pensioner. The DDE concerned will ensure that the teachers, who are free from vigilance angle, are only re-employed and individual teacher should not be made to run around to get the vigilance clearance.
2. The DDE of the concerned District/Branch will be authorized and responsible for issuing the re-employment orders of all teachers after checking vigilance clearance and fitness one month in advance of retirement of the pensioner.
5. Learned counsel would further contend that applicants performance for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-08 was average and poor. As such the Dy. Director of Education while examining the service records of the applicant as to his fitness of reemployment, which is not a right of a retiree but only a right for consideration, has not found the applicant fit as compared to others and as such being the prerogative of the respondents to pick the best of the stuff for reemployment amongst the pensioners, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the respondents.
6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the records.
7. In our considered view, reemployment is a concession given by the Government with an object sought to be achieved. The only pensioners are utilized after retirement, who had clean service records and have proved their utility for such reemployment. The issue whether he has been communicated adverse remarks or not does not relate to evaluation of his performance and on challenge thereof, law shall take its own course. Dy. Director of Education on the basis of records of the applicant having come to the conclusion that his performance was not apt and he was not found fit to be considered for reemployment, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the respondents.
8. In such view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this OA, which is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/