S.P.Nagrath vs Director Of Education, Govt. Of ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 3803 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 4839/2011
%                                                   29th August , 2013

S.P.NAGRATH                                               ......Petitioner

                          Through:       Mr. A.P. Nagrath, Adv.


                          VERSUS

DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI & ANR.
                                      ...... Respondents
                 Through:  Ms. Sonia Arora, Adv. for R-1.

                                         Mr. Seraj Ahmad and Mr. N.A.Khan,
                                         Advocates. for R-2.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           In spite of repeated opportunities, respondent no.2-school has

not filed counter-affidavit. On the last date of hearing i.e 5.4.2013, last

opportunity was granted subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5000/-. Neither

the costs have been paid nor the counter-affidavit has been filed by

respondent no.2.    Respondent no.1-Director of Education has filed its



WPC 4839/2011                                                     Page 1 of 3
 counter-affidavit. I have therefore heard the counsel for the petitioner and

am proceeding to dispose of the case.


2.           Petitioner seeks the relief of benefit of ACP Scheme. Benefit is

sought w.e.f 9.8.1999 and accordingly higher revised scale of pay.

Petitioner has filed the DPC Minutes of Meeting dated 18.7.2009, which

entitled the petitioner to grant of ACP benefits, however, the same was not

granted because the school had filed a court case against the petitioner. This

court case was a case whereby the school had claimed damages against the

petitioner. This is the only reason which is mentioned by the DPC in the

Minutes of Meeting dated 18.7.2009 for denying ACP benefits to the

petitioner though simultaneously, it was stated that petitioner, alongwith 26

other persons, was entitled to the grant of ACP scheme benefits.


3.           The Director of Education has filed an affidavit supporting the

stand of the petitioner.


4.           In view of the aforesaid position, it is clear that petitioner has

been held entitled to ACP scheme benefits by the DPC conducted on

18.7.2009 and the only reason for denying him the benefit was pendency of

a court case filed by the school against the petitioner. Since the case has


WPC 4839/2011                                                   Page 2 of 3
 been dismissed, even assuming that the court case is a valid handicap to

deny the petitioner ACP benefits, that handicap no longer remains.


5.           In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and it is

ordered that petitioner will be granted the ACP benefits as per the

recommendations of the DPC          dated 18.7.2009.      Necessary monetary

emoluments be granted to the petitioner by the respondent no.2 in the

proportion as required under law and within a period of two months from

today. In case, the amount due is not paid within two months, petitioner will

be entitled to interest at 9% per annum simple for the period after two

months and till the petitioner is paid the requisite amount. Parties are left to

bear their own costs.




AUGUST 29, 2013                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib