Ms. Indira Choudhary vs Director Of Education & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1968 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          LPA 82/2009 & CM No.2387-88/2009


        MS. INDIRA CHOUDHARY                           ..... Appellant
                       Through:     Mr. N.M. Popli, Advocate.

                      versus


        DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS.          ..... Respondents
                      Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh and Mr. Ankur
                               Chhibbar,     Advocates       for
                               Respondent No. 1.
                               Mr.     Sanjeev       Sabharwal,
                               Standing      Counsel         for
                               Respondent MCD.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
                      ORDER

% 11.05.2009

1. The appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) is

aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15th July,

2008. The narrow factual matrix of the present case is as follows:-

2. The appellant had filed a writ petition seeking inter alia

amongst other reliefs, the relief for payment of the same pay and

allowances as contemplated under Section 10 of the Delhi School

Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The

appellant relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in

LPA No. 5 of 2000 dated 12th July, 2002. In that case, some teachers

of the respondent school had filed a petition that though the

respondent school had been granted recognition by the Municipal

Corporation of Delhi (in short 'MCD') and inspite of the recognition

being granted to the 'Nursery Wing' of the school, the respondent

school was not giving to its teachers the pay scales and allowances as

granted to employees of other recognized unaided schools. As per the

teachers, who were parties in that petition, the respondent school

was violating the provisions of Section 10 of the Act by denying them

the appropriate scales of pay and allowances.

3. The learned Single Judge in the writ petition and the Division

Bench in the LPA No. 5 of 2000 held that a plain reading of Section

10 of the Act made it clear that the employees of a recognized private

school were entitled to the same scale of pay and allowances which

were granted to employees of a school having a corresponding

status. The Division Bench, accordingly, upheld the order of the

learned Single Judge granting relief to the teachers who were parties

in that matter.

4. In the present petition, the learned Single Judge took note of

the fact that the appellant claimed to be employed as Head Mistress

in the respondent school and her grievance is that she had not been

paid her full salary. The learned Single Judge also took note of the

fact that inspite of being informed by the Director of Education that

the Grievances Redressal Authority has to be the MCD, the appellant

had not invited any administrative decision from the MCD. The

appellant was directed to approach the MCD pointing out to them the

grievances of the appellant. It was also stated in the order that if the

appellant failed to get necessary relief from MCD, it would be open for

the appellant to approach this Court for appropriate reliefs in

accordance with law. The MCD was directed to consider the

representation of the appellant, if she were to file one, in accordance

with law and pass appropriate orders.

5. Today, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for

the appellant fairly submitted that appellant would make a

representation to the MCD within 15 days from today for considering

her case on parity of pay scale. In view of this, the MCD is directed

to consider the representation of the appellant and pass appropriate

orders in accordance with law within two months from the date the

representation is made.

6. In view of what is stated hereinabove, nothing further survives

in the present appeal and the same is accordingly disposed of in the

above stated terms. The pending application also stands disposed of.

7. A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 11, 2009 Sb/RS