Delhi High Court
Director Of Education & Anr. vs Smt. Krishna Kumari on 21 December, 2009
Author: Vipin Sanghi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.13987/09
% Date of Decision: 21.12.2009
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ANR. .... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Som Dutt Kaushik, Advocate.
Versus
SMT. KRISHNA KUMARI .... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
1. Whether reporters of Local No.
papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be No.
reported in the Digest?
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
*
1. The petitioners, Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi &
Anr. have preferred this writ petition, challenging the order dated
15.05.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.1790 of 2008, whereby the Tribunal has
allowed the aforesaid Original Application filed by the respondent and
issued a direction to the petitioners to accord notional pay fixation to
the respondent TGT from 1984. The Tribunal has also held that,
consequently, the respondent would be entitled to grant of two
increments in notional pay fixation and also to the grant of senior
scale of Rs.6500-10500 on completion of 12 years of regular service in
the entry scale of TGT.
2. The respondent was granted notional appointment and seniority
as TGT with effect from 1984 on the basis of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri & Ors.
1993 (2) SCALE 730. The petitioners, however, sought to deny
notional pay fixation to the respondent, on the ground that the
Supreme Court had only talked about assigning proper seniority but
had not granted the relief of notional pay fixation. This led to the
filing of the aforesaid Original Application by the respondent. As
aforesaid, the Original Application of the respondent has been allowed
by the Learned Tribunal.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners before
us is that the respondent could not be given notional pay fixation of
pay. We see no justification in the stand of the petitioners.
4. Once the respondent had been granted notional seniority from
1984, i.e. she is being treated as being in service from 1984 onwards,
the said fiction has to be given its full effect, including for purposes of
pay fixation. Therefore, the pay of the respondent ought to have been
fixed as if she had joined in the year 1984 and on the basis that she
had earned the increments, and benefitted from wage revision, which
may have taken place in the meantime. She would also be entitled to
benefits under the Assured Progression Scheme.
5. In our view, there is no error in the order of the Tribunal, and
the same appears to be perfectly legal and justified. We may,
however, clarify that the pay fixation from 1984 is only notional and
that, by itself, would not entitle the respondent to seek arrears of pay
for the period for which she has actually not worked. Accordingly, the
writ petition is dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
DECEMBER 21, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J.
sr
