WP(C) No. 7844/2010 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.7844/2010 & CM No. 20277/2010 % Date of Decision: 30.03.2011 Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti ..…. Petitioner Through Mr. S. Rajappa, Advocate Versus R.C. Dubey ..…. Respondent Through Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Joshi, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28th May, 2010 in TA 1471/2009 titled as R.C. Dubey Vs. UOI & Anr., whereby the discharge simplicitor of the respondent was held to be punitive and the order dated 5th July, 1995 discharging the respondent was quashed and set aside and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent as Principal of Navodaya Vidyalaya in the same rank WP(C) No. 7844/2010 Page 2 of 5 and grade which he was holding when his services were terminated and he was discharged. The Tribunal in para 24 of the impugned order had given the following directions:- “24. In the result, the TA is allowed in the following terms: (i) The impugned order dated 5.7.1995 are quashed and set aside and we direct the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant as principal of one of the Navodaya vidyalayas in the same rank and grade he was holding when his services were terminated. (ii) The respondents would, however, be at liberty to initiate departmental enquiry against the Applicant for the alleged misconducts, if so advised. (iii) With regard to the consequential salary benefits, it is noted that between 1995 and 2010, the Applicant has lost his prime service period of about 15 years and deprived of his salary and associated allowances. During the hearing, Counsel for Applicant informs that during the said period, the Applicant has to eke out his livelihood by taking tuitions of students and was earning something but not to the extent that he would have got from his salary and allowances. In this peculiar circumstances of the case, it is not possible to direct the Respondents to pay the full back wages to the Applicant. We, therefore, direct the Respondents to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.3 lakhs, which in our considered opinion, the Applicant would be entitled to. WP(C) No. 7844/2010 Page 3 of 5 (iv) The Respondents are directed to implement the above directions (i) and (iii) within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.” The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the respondent was a probationer, therefore, pursuant to the order dated 28th May, 2010, he is to be reinstated as a probationer in the same rank and grade he was holding when he was discharged. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction has contended that the petitioner shall implement the order of Tribunal and the petition was filed as an impression had been gathered that the petitioner perhaps has to be reinstated as a permanent teacher. There cannot be doubt that by impugned order the Tribunal had ordered reinstatement of the respondent as principal of one of the Navodaya vidyalayas in the same rank and grade he was holding when his services were terminated. When the services of the respondent were terminated he was a probationer, therefore he is to be reinstated as probationer. The learned counsel for the respondent also does not oppose this proposition. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions, states that the petitioner shall comply with the order dated 28th May, 2010 WP(C) No. 7844/2010 Page 4 of 5 within four weeks. Consequently, the petitioner shall reinstate the respondent and will also be entitled to initiate departmental inquiry afresh against the respondent for the alleged misconduct, if the petitioners will be so advised. The petitioner will also pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs which was computed up till 2010, till the date of order, as the respondent was not given any emoluments for almost 15 years. This amount of three lakhs which was payable within six weeks of the order of the Tribunal has not been paid though the order of the Tribunal was not stayed by this Court in the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner state that the amount in terms of the order of the Tribunal shall be now paid within four weeks. Since the respondent was not paid the amount in compliance with the order of the Tribunal which was not stayed, the petitioner shall also consider whether any extra amount would be payable to the respondent sympathetically in the facts and circumstances. Since the petitioner has consented to comply with the order of the Tribunal no further directions are required to the parties and the petitioner shall comply with the order of the Tribunal within four weeks. The writ petition is disposed of with these direction. The WP(C) No. 7844/2010 Page 5 of 5 parties are, however, left to bear their own costs of this petition. All the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. Dasti. ANIL KUMAR, J. VEENA BIRBAL, J. March 30, 2011. rs