Joice Johnson vs Director, Directorate Of Edu. & ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 4063 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 17195/2004
%                                          10th September, 2013

JOICE JOHNSON                                             ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Manoj v. George and Mr.
                                         K.Girees Kumar, Advs.


                          VERSUS

DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF EDU. & ANR.      ...... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. A.P.Mukundan, Adv. 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.    Counsel for the petitioner says that the only relief which the petitioner

presses is for payment of monetary emoluments in terms of the 5 th Pay

Commission Report and also consequential increase of terminal benefits to

the petitioner who retired from the respondent no.2-school on 29.2.2004.


2.    Counsel for respondent no.2-school rightly does not dispute that the

5th Pay Commission Report becomes applicable to all the schools in Delhi

and schools have to pay its employees the payment in terms of the 5 th Pay

Commission Report.

WPC 17195/2004                                                               Page 1 of 4
 3.    The only defence urged on behalf of the respondent no.2-school is that

school does not have capacity to pay and therefore there should be deferred

implementation of the 5th Pay Commission Report. I have had an occasion

to consider this aspect in the case of Meenu Thakur Vs. Somerville School

in WP(C) No. 8748/2010 decided on 13.2.2013 wherein I have held that lack

of financial capacity is not a ground not to implement the Pay Commission

Report with respect to schools. The observation was made with respect to

implementation of the 6th Pay Commission Report to the schools.              A

Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.286/2010 titled as Rukmani Devi

Jaipuria Public School Vs. Sadhna Payal & Ors. decided on 11.5.2012 has

held that lack of financial capacity is not a ground to refuse the pay benefits

as per the Pay Commission Report.


4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner has also rightly relied upon a

judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mrs. Veena

Sharma & Ors. Vs. The Manager, No.1 Air Force School & Ors. 2005(84)

DRJ 306 wherein in para -20 the argument of paucity of funds for non-

payment of monetary dues of employees of the school was rejected.


5.    In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and respondent no.2-

school is directed to make payments of all monetary emoluments including

WPC 17195/2004                                                              Page 2 of 4
 salary, terminal benefits and other consequential dues which would become

payable to the petitioner on the respondent no.2 having to implement the 5 th

Pay Commission Report.

6.    Since there will be required calculations to be done, and which can

better be done by the nominee of the Director of Education, while allowing

this writ petition, I direct the parties to appear before the nominee of the

Director of Education who will calculate the dues payable to the petitioner

on the petitioner being granted all monetary benefits on account of

implementation of the 5th Pay Commission Report, consequential pay

increases if any and consequential enhanced terminal benefits payable on the

petitioner superannuating from the respondent no.2-school on 29.2.2004.

Let a copy of this order be given to the Director of Education, who shall

appoint his nominee to determine the amounts which would be payable to

the petitioner in terms of this order. The necessary calculations be done by

the nominee of the Director of Education within a period of two months of

receiving of the copy of the present judgment. On the calculations of the

amounts payable to the petitioner by the respondent no.2-school being given

to the respondent no.2-school by the nominee of the Director of Education,

then such dues would become payable to the petitioner alongwith interest at

WPC 17195/2004                                                            Page 3 of 4
 6% per annum simple from the date from which such amounts become due

and payable and till the amounts are actually paid to the petitioner. Both the

parties can file their calculations supported by the relevant documents. The

nominee of the Director of Education will give personal hearing to the

parties and thereafter pass a speaking order.


7.    The writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid

directions, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




SEPTEMBER 10, 2013                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib