Delhi High Court
Mrs. Anee Mathew vs St. John???S School & Ors. on 24 April, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.5056/2013
% 24th April, 2015
MRS. ANEE MATHEW ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ashok Agarwal, Advocate.
versus
ST. JOHN'S SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Vinod Wadhwa, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Though there are various reliefs claimed in the writ petition, the only
relief which is claimed during arguments and the writ petition is hence
confined to the relief of the petitioner being paid salary in terms of the 6th
Central Pay Commission Report which has become applicable to schools in
Delhi by virtue of the Notification of the Director of Education dated
11.2.2009.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner continues to be an employee of the
respondent no.1/School, and therefore her salary will have to be fixed in terms
of the 6th Central Pay Commission Report and the Notification of the Director
of Education dated 11.2.2009.
W.P.(C) No.5056/2013 Page 1 of 3
3. That even a minority school is liable to comply with the directions of
the Director of Education as per the Circular dated 11.2.2009 has been dealt
by this Court in the judgment of this Court in the case of T.P.Singh Vs. Guru
Harkrishan Public School & Ors. in W.P.(C) No.12132/2009 decided on
14.2.2013. One such other order filed by the petitioner is annexed as
Annexure 'F' to the writ petition, in the case of Smt. Ritula Bhalla & Ors. Vs.
C.L.Bhalla Dayanand Model School & Ors. in W.P.(C) No.7016/2012
decided on 19.7.2013.
4. Accordingly, the respondent no.1/School will fix the salary of the
petitioner in terms of the Report of the 6th Central Pay Commission adopted to
schools by the Notification of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009.
However, the petitioner in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436, will
be paid higher salary for a period commencing from a date three years prior to
filing the writ petition, and continuously thereafter in accordance with law,
including during pendency of the writ petition. It is also clarified that the
higher salary will be calculated from the date on which it became payable in
terms of the Notification of the Director of Educated dated 11.2.2009, though
the amounts due will be payable to the petitioner only for a period of three
years prior to filing of the writ petition and thereafter.
W.P.(C) No.5056/2013 Page 2 of 3
5. I may formally note that respondent nos. 1 & 2/School & Society have
filed their counter-affidavit, but are not appearing, and it is noted that there is
no substantial defence, and which can be accepted by this Court, as to why the
petitioner should not be paid enhanced salary in terms of the Report of the 6th
Central Pay Commission and the Notification of the Director of Education
dated 11.2.2009.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner will
be paid her emoluments in terms of the present judgment. Arrears which are
payable to the petitioner be now cleared by the respondent no.1/School within
a period of three months of receipt of a copy of the present judgment. Parties
are left to bear their own costs.
APRIL 24, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
KA
