Kawaljit Kaur Walia vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 6479 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C) 8529/2014

                                                 Decided on : 04.12.2014

IN THE MATTER OF:
KAWALJIT KAUR WALIA                                      ..... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate

                        versus


GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.                    ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate for R-1 to R-3/DOE.

CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who claims to

have been regularly employed by the respondent No.4 and 5/School to

the post of TGT, praying inter alia for directions to the School to pay her

the arrears recommended under the Fifth and Sixth Pay Commissions

and gratuity dues alongwith interest.

2. A perusal of the paper book reveals that before approaching this

Court, the petitioner did not take any steps to agitate her grievance

against the respondents No.4 and 5/School before the respondents No.1

and 3/DOE. Further, the petitioner has not placed on record any

document to establish that she was a regularly appointed teacher in the

respondents No.4 and 5/School, for claiming entitlement to the arrears

of pay under the Fifth and Sixth Pay Commissions.

3. Counsel for the petitioner states that though the petitioner has

been making representations to the respondents No.4 to 5/School with

copies marked to the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE, she has not addressed

an independent representation to the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE. He

submits that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the present

petition while reserving her right to submit a detailed representation to

the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE ventilating her grievance against the

respondents No.4 and 5/School, for redressal.

4. In view of the aforesaid submission, it is deemed appropriate to

dispose of the present petition with liberty granted to the petitioner to

file a substantive representation before the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE

within two weeks from today. The petitioner shall enclose all the relevant

documents including her letter of appointment, with the said

representation to enable the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE to consider her

grievance after calling upon the respondents No.4 and 5/School to give

its response. A copy of the reply furnished by the respondents No.4 and

5/School shall also be furnished to the petitioner for her to reply thereto.

Thereafter, the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE shall take a decision under

written intimation to the parties within four weeks from the date of

conclusion of hearing and ensure that compliances, if any, of its orders

are made in a time bound manner, in accordance with law.

DASTI to the counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3/DOE.

                                                     (HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 04, 2014                                       JUDGE
rkb