Ravinder Preet Singh And ORS. v. Directorate Of Education And ORS.
$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 312/2020 & CM Nos.911-913/2020 RAVINDER PREET SINGH AND ORS.
.....Petitioners Through:
Mr. Nihilesh Kumar and Mr. Pradeep Dudy, Advs.
versus DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ORS.
..... Respondents Through:
Ms.
Avnish Ahlawat Standing Counsel with Mr.Nilesh Singh, Adv. for R1.
Mr. Jasmeet Singh and Ms.Tejaswini, Advs. for R2 and R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
O R D E R
% 10.01.2020 1.
The present writ petition has been filed by 39 serving employees of respondent no.3 school being run by respondent no.2 society with the following prayers:
a) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the Respondent No. 2 to 3 to release the arrears towards 6th Pay Commission along with interest as directed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in EFA (OS) No. 7 of 2014 pursuant to the undertaking filed on behalf of the Respondent No.2;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the Respondent No. 2 to 3 to implement the 7th Pay Commission as directed by the Respondent No.1 vide order dated 17.10.2017 w.e.f. 1.1.2016 and consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 to 3 to pay all arrears as per 7th Pay Commission along with interest from 1.1.2016 till payment;
c) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing
the Respondent No.1 to implement the order dated 4.5.2018 passed by it on Guru Harkrishan Public School, Hargobind Enclave, New Delhi (Respondent No.3) whereby the Respondent No.1 directed GHPS, Punjabi Bagh to pay the salary of teachers on 7th of every month without default;
d) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the Respondent No.1 to monitor and ensure that the proposed payments/arrears under relief (a), has been adhered to and complied by Respondent No. 2 to 3 in all manner;
e) pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
2.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly concedes that in so far as respondent no.1 is concerned, it has issued repeated circulars directing the respondent nos.2 and 3 to pay salary and terminal benefits to all its employees in accordance with the recommendation of the 6th CPC and 7th CPC. He however submits that despite the aforesaid directions of the respondent no.1, the respondent nos.2 and 3 have not released terminal benefits and arrears of the petitioner's salary in accordance with the recommendation of the 6th and 7th CPC and that too notwithstanding repeated representations to them by the petitioner.
3.
After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner has not approached the respondent no.1 with the grievance that the respondent nos.2 and 3 have failed to comply with its directions as also the fact that respondent no.2 and 3 are in breach of the provisions of Section 10 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973, the petitioner would be satisfied if the
respondent no.1 is directed to treat the present writ petition as a representation and thereafter take appropriate action against the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in accordance with powers vested with respondent no.1 under Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.
4.
Issue notice. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel accepts notice for respondent no.1 and Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocate accepts notice for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
5.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 as also learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 have no objection to the limited prayer made by the petitioner. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of along with pending applications by directing the respondent no.1 to treat the present writ petition as a representation by the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon within 8 weeks from today. 6.
It will be open for the respondent no.1 to call for any comments/clarification, if required from the respondent nos. 2 and 3 as also from the petitioner, before passing the speaking order. 7.
Needless to say, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by respondent no.1, it will be open for the petitioner to take legal recourse as permissible under law.
REKHA PALLI, J.
JANUARY 10, 2020 'sdp'