Disposed

Dina Nath Keshri v. Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC11 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/7635/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition without interfering in the C.A.T.'s order. It allowed the petitioner to approach the Tribunal by filing a fresh O.A. if aggrieved by the Screening Committee's order, noting that equivalence involves factors beyond equal pay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a fresh O.A. before the Tribunal if aggrieved by the Screening Committee's order.

Dina Nath Keshri Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors. — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 7635/2015 DINA NATH KESHRI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, Advocate.

¶4

versus GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondent Through Ms. Mahua Kalra, Advocate for R- 1. Mr. Anil Soni, Advocate for AICTE.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶6

O R D E R % 11.02.2016

¶7

The petitioner primarily is aggrieved by the directions given

¶8

in paragraph 10 of the impugned order dated 20^th April, 2015 passed in OA No.94/2014 by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In paragraph 9 of the same order, the Tribunal has held that the Screening Committee was not right in rejecting the plea of equivalence on the ground that the pay scale of the petitioner while he was working as a Lecturer in Padamshri Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil Foundations Polytechnic, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra was Rs.2200-3700 and the pay scale of the petitioner

¶9

as Lecturer (Civil Engineering) in the Directorate of Training and Technical Education was Rs.2200-4000.

¶10

The earlier portion of the order would indicate that the Tribunal has stated that equivalence is not to be judged solely on the basis of equal pay, but there are several other determining factors viz. nature of duties, responsibilities, minimum qualification, experience etc. It is in these circumstances, directions were given in paragraph 10 after taking note of the submission of the respondent that a fresh Screening Committee had been constituted to look into the matter. The Tribunal had also directed that the said exercise will be completed within a period of 8 weeks.

¶11

By order dated 12^th August, 2015, respondents were asked to inform whether the Screening Committee has considered the case of the petitioner and in case any order stands passed, the same should be brought to the notice of the Court on the next date of hearing.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that an order dated 16^th July, 2015 has been passed by the Screening Committee.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not received copy of the said order. Copy of the said order will be sent to the petitioner by registered post within 3 days from the date of this order.

¶14

The petitioner, if aggrieved, will be entitled to challenge the said order in accordance with law.

¶15

Keeping in view the factual background of the present case, we do not think that we should interfere with the impugned order. At best, the petitioner can urge that an order of remand to the Tribunal should be passed to examine the question of equivalence. As the Screening Committee has passed an order, it would be appropriate and desirable to allow the petitioner to file a fresh original application, if he is aggrieved.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed

¶17

of.

¶18

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶19

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

¶20

FEBRUARY 11, 2016 NA

Dina Nath Keshri v. Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dina Nath Keshri v. Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanmayee Ranjan Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.

L.S. Vaswani Vs the Registrar, Co-Operative Societies

Jagjeet Impex & Ors. Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs & Ors.

Kunal Ranjan Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mitali Bhattacharya Vs University of Delhi and Anr.

Mangal Mishra and Ar Vs Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors.

D.T.C. Vs Rajbir Singh

Sudesh Kumari Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Kunal Ranjan Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Director of Income Tax Vs Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd.

Director of Income Tax Vs New Skies Satellite Bv

Subhash Chander Vs Union of India & Ors.

Laxmi & Anr. Vs State NCT of Delhi

Union Public Service Commission Vs Yogender Babu Sharma