High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/5644/2017

Saraswathy v. Managing Committee St Angel S School Rohini And ANR

2017-07-11Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao2 pages

$~20, 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5644/2017 + W.P.(C) 5645/2017 + W.P.(C) 5655/2017 + W.P.(C) 5657/2017 + W.P.(C) 5660/2017 + W.P.(C) 5661/2017 SARASWATHY AVNEET ASHA RANI RENU RAINA BIDYA JHA RINKU BHAT ..... Petitioners Through:

Ms. Indrani Ghosh, Adv.

versus MANAGING COMMITTEE ST ANGEL S SCHOOL ROHINI AND ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Prakash Gautam, Adv. for R1.

Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC (Civil), GNCTD/R2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

O R D E R

% 11.07.2017 The present batch of petitions have been filed by the petitioners with common prayers including they be granted 1st financial upgradation either under the MACP Scheme or ACP Scheme after completion of 10-12 years of service. There is no dispute that Govt. of NCT of Delhi has issued orders for grant of ACP Scheme in respect of teachers. No document has been filed on record to show that the benefit of MACP has also been extended to

the teachers of the private unaided schools. This aspect needs to be looked into by the Directorate of Education, respondent no.2 herein. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the petitions be treated as representations on behalf of the petitioners for consideration of the respondent no.2 in accordance with the policy of the respondent no.2 for grant of MACP / ACP to the teachers in the schools including private unaided schools and to pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioners as well as the respondent no.1 School. Ordered accordingly. If required, the Director of Education shall seek a necessary report from the respondent no.1 / School and give a hearing to the petitioner and the respondent no.1 / School.

Accordingly, I fix 23rd August, 2017, 11 am as the date and time for the parties through their counsel / representative to appear before the Director of Education. The petition is disposed of. If the order is passed in favour of the petitioners, necessary follow up action shall be taken by respondent no.1 School. If the order is against the petitioners, liberty is granted to them to seek such remedy as available in accordance with law.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J JULY 11, 2017/jg