Delhi High Court
Mithlesh Sharma vs Ramakrishna Public School & Ors on 9 December, 2014
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7974/2014
Decided on 09.12.2014
IN THE MATTER OF :
MITHLESH SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Amit Kumar with
Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocates
versus
RAMAKRISHNA PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : None.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner, who is stated to be working on the post of TGT
Hindi, Art & Craft with the respondent No.1/School, has filed the
present petition, praying inter alia for issuing directions to the
respondents to fix her pay in the pre-revised pay scale of `5500-
9000/- w.e.f. 5.7.2002 and further, fix her pay-scale in PB-2, i.e.,
`9300-34800/- with grade pay of `4600/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and release
the arrears with interest in her favour. The petitioner also seeks
directions to the respondents to permit her to continue discharging
her duties, with continuity in service.
2. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
was directed to file an amended memo of parties and give a written
intimation of the next date of hearing to the respondents No.1, 2 & 4,
with a copy of the paper book so that they would remain present
today.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the amended
memo of parties has been filed and a written intimation of the next
date of hearing was duly conveyed in writing to the respondents
No.1, 2 & 4/ School through speed post along with a copy of the
paper book. Despite the same, none is present on behalf of the said
respondents.
4. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner had lodged a complaint against the School with the
respondent No.3/DOE and upon receiving the same, the Department
had asked the School to respond. He hands over a copy of the reply
that has been furnished by the respondent/School to the Deputy
Director, Department of Education in response to the queries raised,
which is taken on record.
5. In view of the fact that the respondent No.3/Directorate of
Education has initiated steps to redress the grievances raised by the
petitioner in her complaint dated 3.11.2014, it is deemed appropriate
to dispose of the present petition, with liberty granted to the
petitioner to pursue the matter with the Directorate of Education.
6. As none is present for the respondent No.3/DOE, Mr. Sushil
Dutt Salwan, Advocate, who is present in Court, has been requested
to enter appearance on behalf of Department. A complete set of the
paper book has been furnished to him.
7. Respondent No.3/DOE is directed to consider the reply
submitted by the School in the context of the petitioner's complaint,
and after granting a hearing to both sides within four weeks, pass a
speaking order within four weeks from the date of conclusion of
submissions, under written intimation to them.
8. In case the parties are aggrieved by the decision that may be
taken by the respondent No.3/DOE, they shall be entitled to seek
their remedies in accordance with law.
9. The writ petition is disposed of, along with the pending
application.
A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the
respondent No3/DOE to ensure compliance.
(HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 09, 2014 JUDGE
sk/rkb
