Delhi High Court
Mrs. Urmila Verma vs Director Of Education And Anr. on 10 April, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: April 10, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 3494/2018 & CMs 13795-96/2018
MRS. URMILA VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mohd. Asad Khan and Mr. Mrinal
Kumar Sharma, Advocates
versus
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Petitioner stands promoted from the post of Assistant Teacher to
Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) vide order of 31st October, 2016
(Annexure P-15). Petitioner's request for grant of pecuniary benefits of
the post of TGT (Sanskrit) w.e.f. the year 2013 has been turned down by
respondent-School vide order of 3rd July, 2017 (Annexure P-22) wherein
it is noted that the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting of
7th June, 2016 has recommended petitioner's promotion from the post of
Assistant Teacher to TGT (Sanskrit). Petitioner's prayer for promotion
from July, 2013 has been considered and rejected by the Competent
Authority because the benefit of promotion is to be given from the date of
joining i.e. 31st October, 2016.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to
initial Representation of 13th February, 2017 (Annexure P-18) where
petitioner has asserted that she was kept under the impression that after
finalization of requisite promotion formalities, the case for retrospective
sanction of payment for the work done by petitioner from the year 2013
till the year 2016 would be considered as petitioner had been teaching
classes from July, 2013. It is submitted that petitioner became eligible for
promotion to the post of TGT (Sanskrit) in the year 2013 and since she
has been working as TGT, therefore, she is entitled to pay and salary of
TGT w.e.f. July, 2013. Reliance is placed upon Rule 64 (g) of the Delhi
School Education Rules, 1973 to submit that the posts approved by
Director have to be filled up without any discrimination or delay as per
the Recruitment Rules and so, for the delay on the part of respondent in
filling up promotional posts, petitioner should not be made to suffer.
3. Despite service of advance notice, there is no representation on
behalf of respondents.
4. Upon hearing petitioner's counsel and on perusal of the material on
record, I find that there has been a delay in filling up the post of TGT
(Sanskrit). Impugned Communication (Annexure P-22) summarily rejects
petitioner's Representation seeking antedating of promotion from
October, 2016 to July, 2013. It is not controverted in impugned rejection
that petitioner was working on the post of TGT (Sanskrit) since July,
2013 and it is not stated if any letter was issued to petitioner to officiate
as TGT (Sanskrit) since July, 2013 or not.
5. To say the least, petitioner's Representation of 13 th February, 2017
(Annexure P-18) is required to be dealt with by passing a speaking order
which has not been done and so impugned order is set aside with
direction to the Managing Committee of respondent-School do so, within
a period of six weeks from today and convey the fate of Representation
(Annexure P-18) to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner
may avail of remedies as available in law, if need be.
6. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are
disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for petitioner.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 10, 2018
s
