Anjana Sharma & Ors. vs Shishu Bharti Vidyalaya And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 3692 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             W.P.(C) No. 7392/2012 & CM No. 18917/2012 (for
              directions)
%                                             22nd August , 2013

ANJANA SHARMA & ORS.                                       ......Petitioners
                 Through:                Mr. Bharat Gupta, Adv. for petitioner
                                         no.1.

                                         Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Adv.

                           VERSUS

SHISHU BHARTI VIDYALAYA AND ORS             ...... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. R.K.Mishra, Adv. for R-1 and 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.      New counsel Mr. Bharat Gupta, Advocate appears for petitioner no.1

and states that he will file vakalatnama during the course of the day and that

petitioner no.1 has instructed him not to pursue the petition. Accordingly,

this writ petition will stand dismissed as not pressed on behalf of petitioner

no.1.

2.      Counsel for petitioners Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate states that

petitioners are only claiming the relief of grant of benefits in terms of the 6 th

Pay Commission Report and as directed to be implemented in all schools of


W.P.(C) No.7392 /2012                                                  Page 1 of 3
 Delhi by the circular of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009.

3.           I have had an occasion to consider this aspect in many cases

and one such judgment is the judgment in the case of T.P.Singh Vs. Guru

Harkishan Public School & Ors. in W.P.(C) 12132/2009 decided on

14.2.2013 wherein I have said that even minority schools have to implement

the circular of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009.

4.           The only defence which is urged on behalf of counsel for the

respondent no.1-school is that school does not have finances to make

payment in terms of the circular of the Director of Education dated

11.2.2009. I have already considered this aspect in the case of Meenu

Thakur Vs. Somer Ville School & Ors. W.P.(C) 8748/2010 decided on

13.2.2013 wherein I have held that lack of financial viability or ability is not

a ground not to implement the circular of the Director of Education dated

11.2.2009. A Division Bench of this Court in LPA 286/2010 titled as

Rukmani Devi Jaipuria Public School Vs. Sadhna Payal & Ors. decided

on 11.5.2012 has also held that lack of financial viability or ability is not a

ground not to implement the circular of the Director of Education to make

payment in terms of the 6th Pay Commission.

5.    In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and respondent no.-

1-school is directed to make payment to the petitioners in terms of the

W.P.(C) No.7392 /2012                                                 Page 2 of 3
 circular of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009. All the necessary

payments including arrears be made to the petitioners within a period of five

months from today. Amounts be paid alongwith interest at 6% per annum

simple from the dates from which the amounts become due to the date on

which payment will be made. If payment is made beyond five months, then

interest will be payable at 9% per annum simple. The writ petition is

allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observations.




AUGUST 22, 2013                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib