Allowed

Data Deen v. Dirctorate of Education & Anr.

Delhi HC10 Oct 2017LPA/265/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed the appeal, holding that an unexplained reduction in the appellant's grade pay from Rs. 2800 to Rs. 2400 violated service rules. The court directed the school to recalculate pay and arrears based on the earlier higher grade.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release appropriate fixation order along with arrears constituting the difference between amounts paid and what is payable to be effected within six weeks.

Data Deen Vs Dirctorate of Education & Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Decision: October 10, 2017

¶3

LPA 265/2017 DATA DEEN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja and Ms. Rashmi Verma, Advocates

¶4

versus

¶5

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

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶7

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)

¶8

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.

¶9

Page 1 of 3

¶10

LPA 265/2017

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 LPA 265/2017 Page 2 of 3

¶15

explanation forthcoming even during the course of hearing today.

¶16

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.

¶17

The appeal is allowed in above terms.

¶18

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

¶19

SUNIL GAUR (JUDGE)

OCTOBER 10, 2017

Page 3 of 3

LPA 265/2017

Data Deen v. Dirctorate of Education & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Data Deen v. Dirctorate of Education & Anr.

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

Ajit Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Meer Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Anant Ram & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Randhir Singh & Ors. Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Hunting Energy Services Pte. Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

M/S Gupta Sports Planet & Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.