Remanded

Mrs. Urmila Verma v. Director of Education and Anr.

Delhi HC10 Apr 2018W.P.(C)/3494/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the school authority's order rejecting the petitioner's claim for retroactive salary was adjudicated without a speaking order. The matter was remanded to the Managing Committee to pass a reasoned decision within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside and the Representation is to be dealt with by a speaking order within six weeks by the Managing Committee of the respondent-School.

Mrs. Urmila Verma Vs Director of Education and Anr. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Order: April 10, 2018

¶3

W.P.(C) 3494/2018 & CMs 13795-96/2018

¶4

MRS. URMILA VERMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mohd. Asad Khan and Mr. Mrinal Kumar Sharma, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Nemo

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶9

Petitioner stands promoted from the post of Assistant Teacher to Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) vide order of 31^st 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 3^rd July, 2017 (Annexure P-22) wherein it is noted that the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting of 7^th 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. 31^st October, 2016.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to initial Representation of 13^th February, 2017 (Annexure P-18) where

¶11

W.P.(C) 3494/2018

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Page 2 of 3

¶17

W.P.(C) 3494/2018

¶18

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.

¶19

With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are disposed of.

¶20

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for petitioner.

¶21

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶22

APRIL 10, 2018 s

¶23

Page 3 of 3

¶24

W.P.(C) 3494/2018

Mrs. Urmila Verma v. Director of Education and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Urmila Verma v. Director of Education and 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

Ravinder Gupta Vs State Bank of India and Anr.

Chadha Sports (Regd.) Vs Public Works Department, Gnctd and Ors.

State Bank of India Vs Satish Kumar Mittal

State Bank of India Vs Satish Kumar Mittal

Shyam Sunder Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Renaissance Aqua Sports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Balak Ram & Ors. Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Birender Sangwan Vs Distt. Judge North West & Anr.

Balbir Kaur Dahele Vs Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Managing Committee & Ors.

Jaskinder Kaur & Ors. Vs Punjabi Academy & Ors.

Sachin Nandal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shri Merghub Ur Rehman Vs Mst Anisa Khaton and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Rai Vs Veerammal & Ors.

State Bank of India Vs Devesh Kumar Sharma