Delhi High Court
Data Deen vs Dirctorate Of Education & Anr. on 10 October, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: October 10, 2017
+ LPA 265/2017
DATA DEEN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja and Ms. Rashmi
Verma, Advocates
versus
DIRCTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Addl. Standing
Counsel for respondent No.1 with Ms. Mukta
Soni, DEO, Zone-14
Mr.Nipur Dwivedi, Advocate for respondent
No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The narrow controversy in this appeal pertains to the correctness of
the learned Single Judge's order dated 22.02.2017 declining to modify an
earlier order in W.P. (C) 7732/2010. The writ petition had sought for an
appropriate pay fixation consequent upon the petitioner/appellant's
promotion as Laboratory Assistant w.e.f. 01.02.2009. The writ petitioner
had occasioned to approach this Court earlier in 2008, contending that he
was unfairly denied regular promotion to the grade of Laboratory
Assistant even though ACP benefits had been granted to him. The learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, but the Division Bench held the
petitioner entitled to the benefits of regular promotion.
2. The W.P. (C) 7732/2010 had sought for various reliefs. During its
pendency, the petitioner/appellant had retired, but the management of the
unaided school--where he was employed, had issued an order on
10.04.2012, which in effect had the result of pay reduction. More
specifically, the grade pay--originally fixed at `2800/- per month on
26.04.2010, was altered to `2400/- per month. The petitioner/appellant
had contended that this reduction was unfair and mala fide. He had relied
upon the instance of one late Kishan Chand, who was promoted 11
months after him but was granted grade pay of `2800/- per month on the
same post.
3. The reasoning which the impugned order has adopted in this case is
that the petitioner/appellant's grievance originally was with respect to his
promotion as Lab Assistant, but since that relief had been granted, the
fixation was beyond the scope of the proceedings.
4. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties. The
respondent-Management has urged that all dues payable to the
petitioner/appellant's after his retirement have been collected and that in
these circumstances, he cannot have any surviving grievance, and urged
that the Court should not disturb the impugned order.
5. The materials on record--in the form of an Office Order of
17.07.2010 sanctioning the gratuity to Kishan Chand, clearly records that
he was a Lab Assistant in the Scale of `5200/- -- `20,200/- with Grade
Pay of `2800/-. In the petitioner/appellant's case, however, the grade pay
for the same post originally fixed at `2800/- has now been reduced to
`2400/-. The respondent/Management has not explained the reduction
despite a pleading in the concerned application nor was any such
explanation forthcoming even during the course of hearing today.
6. In the above circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the
reduction of the grade pay to `2400/- from original grade of `2800/- is
outside the framework of the Rules, which prescribe that for the post of
Lab Assistant, the pay scale would `5200/- -- `20,200/- with Grade Pay
of `2800/-. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the second respondent-
Mira Model Senior Secondly School to recalculate the pay benefits and
arrears and all terminal benefits, on the basis of petitioner/appellant's
having earned and been entitled to grade pay @ `2800/- per month from
01.02.2009 till the date of his retirement/superannuation. The appropriate
fixation order alongwith arrears constituting the difference between the
amounts paid and what is payable, shall be released to the petitioner
within six weeks from today.
7. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 10, 2017
s
