← Library
High Court of DelhiCONT.CAS(C)/850/2016

Harsharan Kaur Bajaj v. Gurvinderpal Singh Kochar & ORS

2017-02-15Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Manmohan3 pages

4& 10 $~ *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CONT.CAS(C) 765/2016 '

+'

DHANWANTKAUR BUTALIA & ANR Petitioners , , Through: Mr. M.S. Butalia, Advocate, versus '

"

S GURVINDBRPAL SINGH KOCHAR & ORS Respondents Through: Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate for R-1 & 5.

Mr. Gautarri Narayan, Advocate with Ms. Shruthi Parasa, Advocate for DOE, GNGTD.

Mr. Rishi Kumar, Advocate for Ms. Neha Rastogi, Advocate for respondent No.

6.

. .

Ms. Balesh Kuniari, DBO/Z-15 and , Mr.-S.P. Singh, LA, Z-15, DOB.

AND I '

I CONT.CAS(C) 850/2016 HARSHARAN KAUR B AJAJ .....Petitioner Through: Mr. M.S. Butalia, Advocate.

+ versus GURVINDBRPAL SINGH KOCHAR & ORS Respondents Through: Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate for R-r& 2. Mr. Gautam Narayan, Advocate with Ms. Shruthi jParasa, Advocate for DOB, GNCTD.

Ms. Balesh Kumari, DBO/Z-15 and Mr. S.P. Singh, LA, Z-15, DOB.

CORAM:

^ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

ORDER

% 15.02.2017 By:AMULYA

In pursuance to the ' last Order, Mr. Gautam. Narayan, learned Additional Standing counsel for Government of NOT of Delhi has handed over a calculation sheet which indicates the amount due and payable to the petitioners in accordance with the Sixth Pay Commission. The chart handed over by Mr. Gautam Narayan is reproduced hereinbelow:- Period - ^ay Arrears , Gratuity . Leave Encashment i Date Paid Balance Due Paid Balance, Due Paid Balanc :

i Name & 964537 693710 270827 605167 350000 255167 137952 96000 41 9l: ;

Mrs.

Dhanwant Kaur Bhutalia Retired VicePrincipal 01.01,06 To:

31.03.08 Mrs.

N.K.

1453724 1067603 386122 683018 350000 333018 169720 137805 319'" I ;

Bindra Retired Principal 01.01.06 to 31.03.09 r Mrs.

927357 646749 280608 321937 258923 63014 i Harshararan Kaur Bajaj Retired PGT 0i:01.06 To 30.11.08 Leamed counsel for petitioners states that the formula adopted by Directorate of Education for calculating the amount of Gratuity is not correct. He states that the Directorate of Education has adopted the formula that is applicable to Government Teachers who are governed by the CCS Rules. He further states that petitioners are entitled to a rate of interest higher than 6% per annum.

Learned counsel for respondent-SchooL states that the school is willing to pay the amount determined by the Directorate of Education within a period of three weeks along with the' interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f.

September, 2008.

f As the Division Bench in its judgment and order dated 14"^ January. 2016 has not stipulated the formula for calculation of Gratuity, this Court is of the view that it should at this , moment direct the respondent-school to abide by the calculation made by the Directorate of Education. It is pertinent to mention that the Division Bench in its judgment and order dated 14"! September, 2016 and order dated 03"^" May, 2016 has not .stipulated the rate of interest .

~ I Consequently, present contempt petitions are disposed of with a direction to, the respondent-school to make the payment of amounts determined by the Directorate of Education within three weeks along with interest @ 6% per annum commencing OE" September, 2008. ' ;■ However, the petitioners are given liberty to challenge the calculation of the Gratuity amount that has been determined by the Directorate of Education and to seek a higher rate of interest in accordance with law. i • MANMOHAN, J FEBRUARY 15, 2017 js