Delhi High Court
Sh. Ajay Kumar Shamra & Ors. vs Dilshad Public School & Ors. on 6 February, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 6367/2014
% 6th February, 2015
SH. AJAY KUMAR SHAMRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Ashok Agarwal with Ms.Nisha
Tomar, Advocates.
versus
DILSHAD PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Puran Sharma, Advocate for R-
1&2.
Mr.Amiet Andlay, 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. There are 13 petitioners in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. These petitioners in terms of the chart given in
para 3 of the writ petition are working in the posts of T.G.T or P.R.T or
Chowkidar or Water-woman with the respondent no.1. Petitioners though
have claimed various reliefs in this writ petition, the prayer before this Court
is confined to petitioners being granted benefit of the 6th Central Pay
Commission Report which is applicable to schools in terms of the
notification of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009.
2. Respondent nos. 1 & 2, school and society have filed a counter
affidavit stating that the school does not have finances, and therefore the
petitioners cannot be granted payments in terms of the 6 th Central Pay
Commission Report.
3. I have had an occasion to consider this aspect in the judgment
delivered by me in the case of Meenu Thakur Vs. Somerville School & Ors.
in W.P.(C) No.8748/2010 decided on 13.2.2013, wherein I have held that
lack of financial ability of the school is not a ground to deny benefits to
teachers of payments in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission
recommendations. Even a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Rukmani Devi Jaipuria Public School Vs. Sadhna Payal & Ors. in LPA
No.286/2010 decided on 11.5.2012 has held that merely because the school
cannot shift the burden on the students by enhancing the fees, the same is
totally immaterial and an irrelevant question, when, the question is of
payment to the teachers in terms of the revised pay-scale as per a pay
commission report made applicable to schools by the Director of Education.
4. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The petitioners
from a period of three years prior to filing of their representation and
thereafter continuously, of course as per applicable guidelines, will be paid
their salaries on the higher pay scale in terms of the 6 th Central Pay
Commission report and the notification of the Director of Education dated
11.2.2009. The arrears and differences of the salaries be paid to the
petitioners within a period of six months from today, as agreed by the
parties. The amounts which would be payable to the petitioners will be
directly credited into the bank accounts of the petitioners. Respondent no.1
can obviously adjust those amounts which are already paid to the petitioners.
5. In terms of the above, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
FEBRUARY 06, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
KA
