Vijay Lakshmi Sinha vs Director Of Education & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 3875 Del

$~13 to 16.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 6695/2015
      VIJAY LAKSHMI SINHA                           ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Ms. Indrani Ghosh, Advocate with
                       Ms. Nidhi Jacob, Advocate

                            versus

       DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ANR                 ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate
                    for R-1 with Mr. Pradeep Kaushik, LA, Zone 27,
                    DDE.
                    Mr. Saket Sikri, Advocate with Ms. Adwaita
                    Sharma, Advocate for R-2/School.

+      W.P.(C) 6698/2015
       SHAHIDA JAVED                                 ..... Petitioner
                        Through: Ms. Indrani Ghosh, Advocate with
                        Ms. Nidhi Jacob, Advocate

                            versus

       DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ANR.                ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate
                    for R-1 with Mr. Pradeep Kaushik, LA, Zone 27,
                    DDE.
                    Mr. Saket Sikri, Advocate with Ms. Adwaita
                    Sharma, Advocate for R-2/School.

+      W.P.(C) 6723/2015
       SHAHIDA PERWIN ZAMAN                          ..... Petitioner
                        Through: Ms. Indrani Ghosh, Advocate with
                        Ms. Nidhi Jacob, Advocate

                            versus




WP(C) 6695/2015 and connected matters                         Page 1 of 4
        DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ANR                 ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Satyakam, ASC for R-1 with
                    Mr. Pradeep Kaushik, LA, Zone 27, DDE.
                    Mr. Saket Sikri, Advocate with Ms. Adwaita
                    Sharma, Advocate for R-2/School.

+      W.P.(C) 7916/2015
       AYESHA NAQVI                            ..... Petitioner
                        Through: Ms. Indrani Ghosh, Advocate with
                        Ms. Nidhi Jacob, Advocate

                            versus

       DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ANR                 ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate
                    for R-1 with Mr. Pradeep Kaushik, LA, Zone 27,
                    DDE.
                    Mr. Saket Sikri, Advocate with Ms. Adwaita
                    Sharma, Advocate for R-2/School.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                            ORDER

% 23.05.2016

1. With the consent of the parties, the present petitions are being disposed of on the similar lines as passed on 29.1.2015 in a set of writ petitions, lead matter being W.P.(C) 7684/2013 entitled Kausar Perwin vs. Director of Education and Ors.

2. The petitioners herein, who were employed as Teachers with the respondent No.2/School, have filed the present petitions praying inter alia for directions to the respondent No.2/School to pay them their dues under Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, as detailed in para

13 of the writ petitions.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits as per the Recommendations made by the Sixth Central Pay Commission, as also under the order dated 29.05.1991, issued by the respondent No.1/DOE.

4. Counsel for the respondent No.2/School submits that the petitioners would be entitled to the benefits as per the Recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, as per their respective entitlement, but he disputes their claim for bonus etc. based on the letter dated 29.05.1991 addressed by the respondent No.1/DOE to the respondent No.2/School.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the order dated 29.01.2015 passed in the captioned batch of petitions, liberty was granted to the petitioners therein to seek any other monetary emoluments as per extant rules/circulars/guidelines etc. and it is in the light of the said order that the petitioners are claiming bonus and other benefits from the respondent No.2, as detailed in para 19 of the letter dated 29.05.1991, issued by the respondent No.1/DOE.

6. Without making any observations with regard to the entitlement of the petitioners to the benefits claimed on the basis of the letter dated 29.05.1991 addressed by the respondent No.1/DOE to the respondent No.2/School, with the consent of the parties, the present petitions are disposed of with directions issued to the respondent No.2/School to release all the benefits to which each of the petitioners would be entitled as per the Recommendations made by the Sixth Central Pay Commission, within three months from today. If it is the respondent No.2's stand that the petitioners are not entitled to any of the benefits referred to in the letter dated 29.05.1991 addressed by

the respondent No.1/DOE to the School, then reasons therefor shall be furnished by the respondent No.2/School to the petitioners under written intimation to them, within eight weeks from today.

7. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision that may be taken by the respondent No.2/School, they shall be entitled to seek their remedies, if so advised, in accordance with law.

8. The petitions are disposed of.

HIMA KOHLI, J MAY 23, 2016 rkb/mk