1
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-04-2000
Reported in : 2000IIIAD(Delhi)1
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition who are 32 in number have done their JBT/ETE Course from District Institute of Education and Training (for short 'DIET'). It is the case of the petitioners that DIET was specially opened by the respondent-MCD to train and prepare the persons with Specialised Education Teachers for the Primary/Elementary Schools being run by MCD. It was the Policy of the respondent that all the students who qualified from DIETS would be absorbed as Primary School Teachers before the placements could be offered to candidated with basic for higher qualifications i.e. B.Ed., M.Ed. etc. The petitioners have done two years ETE Diploma course. They joined the course in 1996. Although in normal course they would have completed this course in the year 1998. However, in one or more papers, these petitioners could not qualify and, thereforee, they appeared in supplementary examination conducted later on and qualified for Diploma Course in January, 1999. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-15-2000
Reported in : 2000IIIAD(Delhi)922; 85(2000)DLT294; 2000(53)DRJ810; [2000(85)FLR730]; (2000)IILLJ114Del
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as Trainee Inspector with Anand Insurance Company Limited, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi w.e.f. 1st April, 1971. This Company later on got merged with New India Assurance Company Limited respondent No. 2 on 1st January, 1973. Consequently, the Petitioner's services were taken over by respondent No. 2 Company. While the petitioner was working with respondent Company, on 21st June, 1980 he was suspended on ground of detection of serious irregularities allegedly committed by him. Charge-sheet dated 3rd July, 1980 was thereafter served upon him. Petitioner replied denying said charges. Enquiry Officer was appointed at this stage supplementary charge-sheet dated 9th March, 1981 was also served upon petitioner and the same enquiry officer was asked to conduct the enquiry in respect of these charges also. Enquiry was conducted as per which charges stood proved against the petitioner. Petitioner was, consequently dismissed from service vide order dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-26-2000
Reported in : 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1145a; 2000(57)DRJ60
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Facts are brief and undisputed it will be useful to state these facts first:Petitioner was employed as chowkidar in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'MCD', for short) school in Khera Kalan, Delhi on 2.12.1985. His services were terminated on 25.2.1992. He kept quite and did not challenge his termination for long. However in April 1996 he started making representations to the Office of Chief Minister, Delhi. Private Secretary of Chief Minister wrote to Director of Primary Education, MCD for taking sympathetic view. But, no favourable response was received. This all happened in the year 1996. Thereafter on 20th February, 1997 petitioner raised alleged dispute by filing statement of claim before Conciliation Officer, in the Office of Labour Commissioner, Rajpur Road, Delhi. MCD was summoned and it filed its reply showing inability to reinstate the petitioner. Conciliation proceedings accordingly ended in failure. Conciliation Officer submitt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-19-2000
Reported in : [2003]115CompCas436(Delhi); 2000(54)DRJ393
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. Plaintiff, Bank of India had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2475045.02 against four defendants namely, (1) M/s Luk Auto Ancillary (India) Ltd., (2) L.N. Raina, (3) Vijay Kumar Mundhra and (4) M/s Globe Motors Ltd. Defendant No. 1 being the principal debtor and defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 as its sureties. Defendants No. 1 and 2 and defendants No. 3 and 4 filed two separate written statements contesting the suit. Issues were settled. Defendants No. 1 and 4 had gone in liquidation and were represented by official Liquidator on various dates. However, during trial defendants did not appear. Plaintiff led ex parte evidence and vide judgment dated December 3, 1984 the suit was decreed in the sum of Rs. 2475042.02 with costs and future interest at the rate of 19.25% per annum. After the aforesaid decree was passed defendant No. 3 has filed an application (IA No. 3542/85 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC) and later on defendant No. 2 also filed similar application (IA No. 4076/85)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-04-2000
Reported in : 2000VAD(Delhi)604; 86(2000)DLT505
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. In the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 15.2.1990 passed by the Special Secretary of Delhi Administration rejecting the claim of the petitioner for allotment of alternative land. By this writ petition the petitioner also seeks for a direction to the respondents for allotment of an alternative plot in favor of the petitioner in terms of the scheme adopted by the respondents in the year 1961. 2. Land of the petitioner measuring 9 bids was comprised in Khasra No.1189/317 situated in Village Kilokari was acquired by the respondent. In respect of the aforesaid acquisition proceedings an award was passed on 16.5.1961. The petitioner received compensation as admitted by her sometime in the month of April, 1969 and the construction standing on the said land was demolished by the respondent after acquisition of the land sometime in the month of March, 1969. The petitioner relies upon the scheme adopted by the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-15-2000
Reported in : 2000IIAD(Delhi)585; 84(2000)DLT758; 2000(53)DRJ219
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. In the amended plaint it is alleged that the plaintiffs were the owners of property No. 29-B, Connaught Place, New Delhi, Along with defendants 2 to 6. Shops on the ground floor of the property has been in occupation of the plaintiffs as tenants for the last many years. Defendant No.1 approached the plaintiffs and said defendants for purchase of the said property for Rs. 8,25,000/- through Narinder Anand, property broker. Plaintiffs told the defendants that they were ready to sell the property subject to the specific condition that they would remain as tenants in the respective shops in their occupation for ever and after their death their respective heirs would become tenants in their place on the same terms and conditions. Defendant No.1 agreed to purchase the property subject to the said specific condition. It is further alleged that at the time of entering into the agreement of sale dated 26th February, 1973 the agreements of tenancies were also simultaneously...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-03-2000
Reported in : 2000VAD(Delhi)169; 86(2000)DLT99; 2000(54)DRJ124
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner/management of the school has filed the writ petition challenging the order of the Delhi School Tribunal dated 13.8.1996. 2. A few facts necessary for the appreciation of the question raised by the petitioner could be noticed as under: The second respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the petitioner school and she was confirmed on 9.3.1972. Disciplinary action was taken against her and she was kept under on suspension by order dated 27.4.1981. As per the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules thereunder, a Committee for holding a domestic inquiry was constituted and, consequently, the second respondent was removed from service vide order dated 19.9.1987. That was challenged by the second respondent before the Delhi School Tribunal. The Delhi School Tribunal set aside the order of removal holding that the Disciplinary Committee constituted was biased against the second respondent and in that two members of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-18-2000
Reported in : 2000IVAD(Delhi)449; 2000(53)DRJ332
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioners are the teachers teaching in Air Force Bal Bharti School, Lodi Road, New Delhi which is arrayed as respondent No.3 in this case. This school is being run by Air Force Educational and Cultural Society (Regd.) which is imp leaded as respondent No. 2. The demand of the petitioners is that they should be given HRA which is wrongly denied to them by the respondent school. The prayer is couched in the following words: 'Pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of declaration to the effect that the denial of HRA to the petitioners is vocative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and also vocative of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act. Pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents 2 and 3 to release HRA to the petitioners at least with effect from the date of the coming into force of the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission and thereafter to continue paying the same and pass any such other o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-21-2000
Reported in : 95(2002)DLT770
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The appellants in the Latent Patent Appeals, the petitioner in C.W.P. 3063/95 and the petitioner in C.W.P. 4082/95 have come forward with a grievance that their services have been dispensed with by the respondents on extraneous reasons which cannot be sustained in law. They were all working at one time in 168 Infantry Brigade deployed in the place called Samba, in a border area.2. Each of the appellants and each of the petitioners has got its own case to relate which requires a careful consideration. At the outset it may be noted that the question to be decided is whether the respondents have established their case against each of the appellants and the petitioners who have approached this Court.3. The genesis of the present action was the arrest of Gnr. Aya Singh and Gnr. Sarwan Dass who were alleged to be assisting Pakistan SSI endangering the security of India. They were arrested in the year 1975 on suspicion of their being spies passing on secret information t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-23-2000
Reported in : 2000VAD(Delhi)634
ORDERVikramjit Sen, J.1. In the case of ONGC Vs . Collector of General Excise : 1992(61)ELT3(SC) the Apex Court had observed that it had 'on more than one occasion pointed out that Public Section Undertakings of Central Government and the Union of India should not fight their litigations in Court by spending money on fees of counsel, court fees, procedural expenses and wasting public time. Courts are maintained for appropriate litigations. Court's time is not to be consumed by litigation which are carried on either side at public expenses from the source. Notwithstanding these observations repeated on a number of occasions, the present cases appear to be an instance of total callousness. The letter of October 3, 1988, indicated that the Cabinet Secretary was looking into the matter. That has not obviously been followed up. As an instance of wasting public time and energy this matter involves a principle to be examined at the highest level'. Five years later the Court explained this dec...
Tag this Judgment!