Disposed

Rajesh Kumar Raghav & Ors. v. Directorate of Education & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Jan 2018W.P.(C)/12005/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ petitions by Class-III/IV employees complaining of non-issuance of appointment letters and non-payment of salaries. The petitioner was directed to represent on salary grievance; the School must issue appointment letters and pass a speaking order on salary, and refrain from coercive steps regarding school fee payment until the fee issue is resolved.

What did the court decide?

Respondent-School to issue copy of appointment letters within four weeks. Petitioner to file representation on salary grievance; School to pass speaking order within twelve weeks. No coercive steps on

Rajesh Kumar Raghav & Ors. Vs Directorate of… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Order: January 12, 2018

¶3

W.P.(C) 12005/2016 & CMs 47397/2016, 839/2018 + W.P.(C) 11687/2017 & CM 47440/2017

¶4

RAJESH KUMAR RAGHAV & ORS SANDEEP KUMAR AND ANR.

¶5

..... Petitioners

¶6

Through: Ms. Kiran Singh, Advocate

¶7

versus

¶8

DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC for respondent No.1 (in I-10)

¶9

Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC and Mr. Rizwan, Advocate for respondent No.1 (in I-18) Mr. Kanwar S.N., Advocate for respondent No.2-School

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶12

ORDER (ORAL)

¶13

Petitioners in above-captioned two petitions are Class-III and Class-IV employees of respondent-School whose grievance is that they have not been issued proper appointment letter nor their salaries in terms of Rule 96 of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 are being paid to them.

¶14

Since the issue involved in these petitions is identical, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these petitions

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

W.P. (C) 12005/16 & 11687/17

¶17

have been heard together and by this common order, they are being disposed of.

¶18

Learned counsel for respondent-School submits that copies of appointment letters issued to petitioners would be supplied to them within a period of four weeks or in the alternative, duplicate appointment letters would be issued to them. He further submits that the apprehension of petitioners of their services being dispensed with, is misplaced as respondent-School is not contemplating to do so and if an occasion arises, then it would be done in accordance with applicable Rules and Regulations.

¶19

So far as salary aspect is concerned, there is no clarity in the pleadings and so, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of these petitions with permission to petitioners to make a concise Representation qua their grievance of salary being not paid, within a period of four weeks. If it is so done, then respondent-School shall pass a speaking order on petitioners’ Representation within a period of twelve weeks and the fate of the Representation be conveyed to petitioners, so that they may avail of their remedies as available in law, if need be.

¶20

As regards the grievance made in C.M.839/2018, it would be incorporated by petitioner- Rajesh Kumar Raghav in his Representation and issue of payment of school fee by the said petitioner be also dealt with by respondent-School in terms of applicable Rules and Regulations. So far as the issue of payment of school fee by petitioner- Rajesh Kumar Raghav is concerned, no coercive steps in respect thereof be taken by respondent-School till the issue of payment of school fee by petitioner-

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

W.P. (C) 12005/16 & 11687/17

¶23

Rajesh Kumar Raghav is decided by respondent-School and conveyed to petitioner- Rajesh Kumar Raghav , who shall thereafter be at liberty to avail of remedies as available in law, if need be.

¶24

6. With aforesaid directions, the above-captioned petitions and the applications are disposed of.

(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE

JANUARY 12, 2018
s

Page 3 of 3

W.P. (C) 12005/16 & 11687/17

Rajesh Kumar Raghav & Ors. v. Directorate of Education & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Raghav & Ors. v. Directorate of Education & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Automak Academy Vs Union of India & Ors.

International Fasteners through Its Proprietor Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Pio, Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs Vishwas Bhamburkar

Tula Ram Vs Delhi Power Co.Ltd. & Anr.

Subhash Chander Khatri Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Mrs. Sangeeta Purohit Vs State (Govt. of NCT Delhi ) and Ors.

Ms. Nirmal Yadav Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Tula Ram Vs Delhi Power Co.Ltd. & Anr.

Gaj Raj Singh Rana Vs Delhi Power Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Smt. Rajni Mathur Vs Dr. Radhakrishnan International School

Dr. E.S. Rajendran Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Neelam Dua Vs Aggarwal Welfare Society and Ors.

Abhinav Chaudhary and Ors. Vs Delhi Technological University and Anr.