Delhi High Court
Gaynesh P. Soti vs Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College & ... on 5 May, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4572/2002
5th May, 2015
GAYNESH P. SOTI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. C. Mohan Rao & Mr. Lokesh
Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Versus
DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAYA COLLEGE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner seeks the relief of being granted 1/10th of the basic pay
of the higher post of Librarian, and in which higher post he was working
from 07.09.1992 to 12.11.2001.
2. The petitioner relies upon the Rule 31(i) of Section II of the
University Non-Teaching Employees (Term and Conditions of Service)
Rules-1971 and which reads as under:
"An employee placed in charge of the current
duties of a higher post will receive pay in the
basic post plus 1/10th of the minimum of the scale
of pay applicable to the higher post."
3. A reading of the counter affidavit of the respondent no. 1/College
shows that there is no dispute that the petitioner worked at the higher post
inasmuch as, the petitioner was asked by the respondent no. 1/College vide
order dated 7.9.1992 to do the work of Librarian. This order dated
7.9.1992 reads as under:
"It is brought to the notice of all concerned
that consequent upon the joining of Shri G.
Prasad Soti, as Professional Assistant in the
College Library, all papers relating to Library
will now be routed through him. He will be the
incharge of the Library office."
(underlining added)
4. In the counter affidavit of the respondent no. 1/College, it is stated
that the petitioner was not appointed as Librarian, and that in fact the
petitioner did not properly do his work as Librarian, and therefore,
petitioner should not get the benefit of 1/10th of the basic pay of the higher
post.
5. I am informed by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner on
succeeding in this petition will get approximately an amount of
Rs.20,000/- being the 1/10th of the basic pay of the higher post for work
which was done for almost about ten years i.e. from 7.9.1992 to
12.11.2001.
6. In view of the above, since there is a specific rule which does not
require appointment to the specific higher post, but only requires work to
be done of the higher post, and the petitioner had worked on the higher
post in terms of the specific order of the respondent dated 7.9.1992
whereby he was made the incharge of the Library, petitioner is therefore
entitled to the benefit of Rule 31(i) which has been reproduced above by
getting 1/10th of the basic pay at the higher post as additional
pay/emolument.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and respondent no.
1/College will now pay to the petitioner, within a period of two months of
the receipt of the copy of the present judgment, 1/10th of the minimum
scale of pay of the post of Librarian for the period from 7.9.1992 to
12.11.2001. For any delay of payment beyond two months, petitioner will
be entitled to interest @ 7½% per annum simple.
8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, in terms of the aforesaid
observations. No costs.
MAY 05, 2015/hk VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
