JUDGMENT : Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral):-- 1. As detailed hereinafter, a very difficult position has arisen in the facts of the present case because of two different judgments passed by two different learned Single Judges of this Court on the interpretation of Rule 121 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1973’). 2. By the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/School had challenged the judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal which had allowed the appeal filed by the employee/respondent No. 2 and directed reinstatement as also payment of certain back wages. During the hearing of the writ petition, the School did not press the aspect with respect to reinstatement of the employee in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal, with liberty given to the School to hold departmental proceedings in accordance with law, but the petitioner/School contested the issue with respect to powers of the Delhi School Tribunal to pass monetary reliefs to an employee because as per the petitioner/School as per Rule 121 of the Rules, 1973 only a managing committee of a school can do so. Rule 121 of the Rules, 1973 provides that in case an employee who is dismissed or removed from service or compulsorily retired, is reinstated, it is the managing committee of the school which will pass orders with respect to the period during which the employee was absent from duty on account of the illegal termination of services of an employee by the school. 3. On 6.8.2013, this Court passed an order referring the issue of interpretation of Rule 121 of the Rules, 1973 to a larger Bench in view of the fact that there were two different judgments on the interpretation of Rule 121 of the Rules, 1973, one of the learned Single Judge of this Court and another of a Division Bench of this Court. The judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court was the judgment in the case of The Manager, Arya Samaj, Girls Higher Secondary School & Anr. v. Sunrita Thakur Etc. 43 (1991) DLT 139 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was in the case of M/s Apeejay School v. P.O. Delhi School Tribunal and Anr. in LPA No. 493/2002 decided on 16.12.2002. v. Sunrita Thakur Etc. 43 (1991) DLT 139 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was in the case of M/s Apeejay School v. P.O. Delhi School Tribunal and Anr. in LPA No. 493/2002 decided on 16.12.2002. Whereas the learned Single Judge in the case of The Manager, Arya Samaj, Girls Higher Secondary School & Anr. (supra) held that the Tribunal has no power because of Rule 121 of the Rules, 1973 to pass any order with respect to monetary benefits to be paid to a reinstated employee, the Division Bench of this Court had very cursorily observed that the Tribunal also has powers to pass orders with respect to monetary benefits to be paid to a reinstated employee. 4. This matter was listed before the full Bench on 23.9.2013 and the full Bench has observed that the judgment in the case of The Manager, Arya Samaj, Girls Higher Secondary School & Anr. (supra) will prevail inasmuch as no reasoning has been given by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Apeejay School (supra). 5. Today, during the course of hearing learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has brought to my notice a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of The Managing Committee Hira Lal Jain v. Shri Chander Gupt Sharma & Ors. in CWP No. 7617/2000 decided on 17.1.2006. This judgment in the case of The Managing Committee Hira Lal Jain (supra) specifically refers to the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of The Manager, Arya Samaj, Girls Higher Secondary School & Anr. (supra) and effectively holds that the said judgment does not lay down a good law. The relevant observations of the Single Judge of this Court in the judgment dated 17.1.2006 in the case of The Managing Committee Hira Lal Jain (supra) are contained in paras 28 to 36. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argues that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The Managing Committee Hira Lal Jain (supra) cannot effectively overrule the ratio of an earlier judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The Manager, Arya Samaj, Girls Higher Secondary School & Anr. (supra), and with respect to which legal proposition there cannot be any quibble. (supra), and with respect to which legal proposition there cannot be any quibble. It is also argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the learned Single Judge in the case of The Managing Committee Hira Lal Jain (supra) could not have overruled the direct ratio of the judgment in the case of The Manager, Arya Samaj, Girls Higher Secondary School & Anr. (supra) and at best the learned Single Judge of this Court could have referred the matter to a larger Bench if he disagreed with the ratio of the judgment in the earlier case of The Manager, Arya Samaj, Girls Higher Secondary School & Anr. (supra). 7. Therefore, the position which arises today before me is that on the one hand this Court can possibly rightly decide in terms of the ratio in the case of The Manager, Arya Samaj, Girls Higher Secondary School & Anr. (supra) because it is an earlier judgment of the year 1991 whereas the judgment in the case of The Managing Committee Hira Lal Jain (supra) is of the year 2006, however various counsels who are present in the Court before me said that even the Delhi School Tribunal is facing the difficulty in deciding which judgment to follow of different learned Single Judges of this Court i.e whether of The Manager, Arya Samaj, Girls Higher Secondary School & Anr. (supra) or of The Managing Committee Hira Lal Jain (supra). Therefore, instead of passing a third judgment by this Court, I deem it fit that in view of disagreement between the ratios with respect to Rule 121 of the Rules, 1973 in the judgments in the cases of The Manager, Arya Samaj, Girls Higher Secondary School & Anr. (supra) and The Managing Committee Hira Lal Jain (supra) let the matter be referred to a larger Bench or full Bench of this Court as to what should be the interpretation of Rule 121 of the Rules, 1973 and whether the interpretation of Rule 121 of the Rules, 1973 that the Delhi School Tribunal has no power to pass orders with respect to monetary benefits to be given to a reinstated employee is correct as held in the case of The Manager, Arya Samaj, Girls Higher Secondary School & Anr. (supra) or the ratio in the case of The Managing Committee Hira Lal Jain (supra) is correct which holds that Delhi School Tribunal does have the power. 8. Counsel for the parties state that there is urgency in the matter and therefore the same be listed at an earlier date before the larger/full Bench and therefore list the matter before the larger/full Bench after obtaining the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 23rd April, 2015.