Delhi High Court
Dav Model School & Anr. vs Directorate Of Education & Ors. on 30 January, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 21/2025, CM APPL. 1560/2025, CM APPL. 1561/2025 &
CM APPL. 1562/2025
DAV MODEL SCHOOL & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. K.S. Kashyap, Adv. for R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 30.01.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 8 October 2024
passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 4431/2017.
2. The aforesaid writ petition was preferred by one Neetu Kumar,
who is Respondent 4 herein, for a direction to the appellant school to
release her salary in the grade of Trained Graduate Teacher w.e.f. 19
September 2006. During the course of the proceedings, however,
Respondent 4 pressed the relief only with respect to grant of financial
upgradations under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme
(MACP) as prayed in prayer clause (iv) and (v) of the writ petition.
3. During the course of the writ petition, the following order came
to be passed by this Court on 29 August 2019.
"On 25.09.2017, ld. counsel for the petitioner stated before the
Court that the school may grant benefits of Modified Assured
Career Progression Scheme (MACP) to her. Today, ld. counsel for
the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner asserts the
relief limited to the said aspect, with the consequential reliefs as
prayed in clause (iv) and (v). During the course of hearing, ld.
counsel for the respondents concedes that the petitioner is entitled
to second MACP from July, 2017.
In the given factual conspectus and the totality of the facts and
circumstances, it is directed that the respondents shall grant second
MACP to the petitioner from July, 2017 within four weeks from
today. The arrears of benefits of second MACP shall be released to
the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. It is made clear that that
question of payment of interest is kept open.
List on 20.11.2019."
4. The aforesaid order was never challenged by the appellant or
questioned by way of review, modification, recall or any other cognate
proceedings, it, therefore, attained finality.
5. It appears that, despite having conceded before the learned
Single Judge that the Respondent 4 was entitled to the benefits of the
second MACP w.e.f. July 2017, the said benefits were not released.
6. The impugned order has been passed finally disposing of the
writ petition.
7. The learned Single Judge has taken a serious view of the fact
that there has been no complete compliance with the order dated 29
August 2019.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has observed
and directed as under:
"4. Indisputably, this order was never challenged by the
School/Respondent No.5 and has attained finality. Despite an
assurance given to the Court to file an affidavit indicating the
amounts paid to the Petitioner towards grant of MACP benefits,
complete benefits have not been released to the Petitioner.
Petitioner claims that she has been working with the School
continuously since 16.07.1997 without any break and was drawing
a pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 under the 5th CPC and is entitled to
two Financial Upgradations till 2017, when she completed 20 years
of regular service, whereas Respondent School has granted First
MACP benefit in 2017 and the Second MACP from 2019 pursuant
to the direction of this Court, leading to a financial loss to the
Petitioner. Petitioner has placed on record a rejoinder affidavit
dated 19.12.2023, wherein she has detailed the MACP benefits due
to her along with charts indicating her salary and emoluments. This
affidavit and the documents annexed thereto are uncontroverted. In
view of the direction of the Court given way back on 29.08.2019 to
pay the MACP benefits to the Petitioner, which is unassailed, there
is no doubt that the Respondent School cannot today take a stand
that Petitioner is not entitled to the Second Financial Upgradation
under the MACP Scheme.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the
Respondent School to work out the balance amounts payable to the
Petitioner on account of the two Financial Upgradations under the
MACP Scheme after examining the details given by the Petitioner
in the rejoinder affidavit dated 19.12.2023. The entire exercise
shall be completed by the School within 8 weeks from the date of
receipt of this order and needless to state that the payments shall be
released with interest @ 6% per annum from the date they became
due till the date of actual payment."
9. The present appeal has been filed assailing the aforesaid order
dated 8 October 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge.
10. We have heard Mr. Atul Kumar, learned Counsel for the
appellant at some length.
11. On the Court querying as to why the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge should be interfered with, given the concession
made before the learned Single Judge on 29 August 2019, Mr. Kumar
submits that the concession is contrary to law as well as the record.
12. We are not prepared to countenance this submission at this
stage of time. Nearly 5 and half years have passed since the aforesaid
statement was made. Even on the date of passing of the impugned
judgment of the learned Single Judge, over five years had passed since
the making of the said statement. During this period of five years, no
attempt was ever made to recall, modify or challenge the order dated
29 August 2019.
13. A litigant before the Court is bound by the statement made to
the Court. If the litigant seeks to resile from the statement, it has to do
so in accordance with known legal procedure. It cannot wish away the
statement and, when the writ petition is finally decided relying on it,
seek to contend that the statement was not in accordance with law.
14. Allowing such a practice would throw legal procedure into
complete disarray.
15. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment of the learned Single Judge which is upheld in its entirety.
We direct that the financial benefits to which the respondent is due on
the basis of the statement dated 29 August 2019 be released to her
positively within one week from today along with interest, as directed
by the learned Single Judge.
16. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
JANUARY 30, 2025
ar
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
