Modern Public School Edus. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr.
2007 Latest Caselaw 1202 Del

JUDGMENT

Rekha Sharma, J.

1. Prior to this writ-petition, Rakesh Nehra, who is respondent No. 2 had filed a writ petition bearing No. 15987 of 2004 in which he prayed for a direction to the petitioner herein, namely, Modern Public School Education Society (Regd.) to redesignate the post of PET "cum"Office Assistant as PET and consequently to grant him the pay-scale of PET with effect from the date of his initial appointment. The post of PET "cum "Office Assistant was initially in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2040 which was subsequently revised to Rs. 4500- 7000. The post of PET carried the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000. Thus, the petitioner also claimed the arrears of salary owing to difference in the pay- scale.

2. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 was employed by the petitioner as PET "cum" Office Assistant on March 10, 1997. He is still working as such. However, on September 18, 2003, he made representation to the School stating that though he was appointed as PET "cum" Office Assistant he was working only as PET and that the designation of PET " cum " Office Assistant as was given to him was only a cloak to deprive him of actual pay-scale of PET. This fact was disputed by the School.

3. The aforesaid writ petition filed by respondent No. 2 involved disputed questions of fact inasmuch as while as per him, he was working as PET and yet was not being paid salary of that scale, according to the School, he was appointed as PET " cum " Office Assistant and mostly discharged the functions of Office Assistant which was a ministerial post. This Court in view of the disputed nature of the facts, by an order dated July 13, 2005 directed the Director of Education "to consider the representation of petitioner and also examine all the material produced by the parties on the issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the pay-scale prescribed for PET." It was implicit in this order that before giving a finding as to the scale to which respondent No. 2 was entitled, the Director was required to go into the question whether respondent No. 2 was actually performing the duties of only PET or that of PET "cum" Office Assistant.

4. On a perusal of the order passed by the Director dated August 25, 2005, I find that it does not deal with the question squarely and effectively. The Director of Education seems to have been swayed by the fact that there is no post of PET " cum " Office Assistant in the Directorate of Education and that in view of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, the School cannot but be asked to give the salary of PET to respondent No. 2 as is applicable to PET employed in the Directorate of Education. This, in my view, is begging the question. It was incumbent upon the Director of Education to have first given a finding whether respondent No. 2 was performing only the functions of PET or was working as PET " cum " Office Assistant and only in the event of the Director giving the finding that he was working as PET that an order as has been passed by the Director could be passed.

5. Having regard to what has been noticed above, I remand the case to the Director of Education with a direction to address the issue afresh and to give a specific finding after considering all the documents placed by both sides on the question whether the respondent No. 2 was working as a PET or PET " cum "

6. Office Assistant. The order shall be passed within four months from today. In view of these directions, the earlier order of the Director of Education dated August 25, 2005 is set aside. The parties shall appear before the Director of Education on July 25, 2007.

7. The writ petitions stand disposed of.