Yadvinder Kaur Vs. Guru Nanak Public School and anr - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1118428
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnJan-06-2014
JudgeRAJIV SHAKDHER
AppellantYadvinder Kaur
RespondentGuru Nanak Public School and anr
Excerpt:
* the high court of delhi at new delhi % judgment delivered on:06. 01.2014 + w.p.(c) 4807/2013 yadvinder kaur ..... petitioner versus guru nanak public school & anr ..... respondents advocates who appeared in this case: for the petitioner: mr. ashok chhabra, advocate for the respondents: mr. mithlesh kumar, advocate for r-1 ms. purnima maheshwari, adv. for r-2 coram :hon'ble mr justice rajiv shakdher rajiv shakdher, j1 mr. kumar appears on behalf of respondent no.1 while ms. maheshwari appears on behalf of respondent no.2.2. notice in this petition was issued on 30.07.2013. the returnable date fixed on that date was 11.10.2013. on 11.10.2013, both the respondents were represented. the respondents were given six (6) weeks to file a counter affidavit. to date, counter affidavits have not been filed by the respondents. opportunity is sought, once again, by both counsels to file their counter affidavits.3. it is noticed that the only prayer made in the writ petition is : that the respondents be directed to pay salary and other allowances to the petitioner as per the recommendations of the 6th pay commission, which became effective from 01.01.2006. the consequential direction for release of outstanding dues is also sought.4. ms. maheshwari informs me that 6th pay commission recommendations became effective from academic year 2008-2009. for this purpose, she draws my attention to a circular issued by respondent no.2, which is dated 11.02.2009. a copy of the said circular is shown to me in court today.5. in the present case, the petitioner avers that she joined respondent no.1 as a laboratory assistant in 1980 and continued to work with it, till 2010; when she retired as a tgt. 5.1 it appears that the petitioner vide communication dated 14.05.2013, informed respondent no.1 that this court had taken a decision for release of arrears to ex-employees in terms of the recommendations of the 6 th pay commission. 5.2 consequent thereto, on 22.05.2013, the petitioner appears to have received a response from respondent no.1 that no directions had been issued to it for implementation of the recommendations of the 6 th pay commission or for payment of arrears by this court.6. in the meanwhile, this court in wp (c) 1205/2010 titled davinder kaushik and ors. vs. guru nanak public school and ors. vide order dated 23.05.2013 directed release of arrears of pay to the petitioner in that case, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. (simple). a further direction was issued that if payment was not made within three (3) months, interest would be paid at the rate of 9% p.a. (simple).7. mr. chhabra, the learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the aforementioned order which was passed in a case involving respondent no.1 was brought to the notice of respondent no.1 vide communication dated 03.06.2013. 7.1 mr. chhabra further informs me that the aforesaid communication was followed by a legal notice dated 27.06.2013. 7.2 it is mr. chhabra’s contention that since despite, the aforesaid order being brought to the notice of respondent no.1, arrears of salary were not released, the petitioner was constrained to approach the court.8. having regard to the fact that respondent no.1 has failed to file its counter affidavit, despite, opportunity having been granted as far back as on 11.10.2013 and, given the fact that respondent no.2, supports the stand of the petitioner that he is entitled to the relief as claimed, i am inclined to direct respondent no.1 to pay arrears of salary of the petitioner in terms of the order issued by this court, in its own case, involving another petitioner, in terms of order dated 23.05.2013. this is specially so, since respondent no.1 has chosen not to file a counter affidavit to lay challenge to any of the averments made by the petitioner. the necessary consequences of which are, that the petition remains untraversed and, the averments made therein, have to be accepted.9. it is, however, made clear that the arrears of pay and allowance, if any, would be paid to the petitioner bearing in mind the extant provisions of law, which would include, though not limited to the circular dated 11.02.2009.10. the petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. rajiv shakdher, j january06 2014/yg
Judgment:

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:

06. 01.2014 + W.P.(C) 4807/2013 YADVINDER KAUR ..... PETITIONER Versus GURU NANAK PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR ..... RESPONDENTS ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Chhabra, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Mithlesh Kumar, Advocate for R-1 Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Adv. for R-2 CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 Mr. Kumar appears on behalf of respondent no.1 while Ms. Maheshwari appears on behalf of respondent no.2.

2. Notice in this petition was issued on 30.07.2013. The returnable date fixed on that date was 11.10.2013. On 11.10.2013, both the respondents were represented. The respondents were given six (6) weeks to file a counter affidavit. To date, counter affidavits have not been filed by the respondents. Opportunity is sought, once again, by both counsels to file their counter affidavits.

3. It is noticed that the only prayer made in the writ petition is : that the respondents be directed to pay salary and other allowances to the petitioner as per the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, which became effective from 01.01.2006. The consequential direction for release of outstanding dues is also sought.

4. Ms. Maheshwari informs me that 6th Pay Commission recommendations became effective from Academic Year 2008-2009. For this purpose, she draws my attention to a circular issued by respondent no.2, which is dated 11.02.2009. A copy of the said circular is shown to me in court today.

5. In the present case, the petitioner avers that she joined respondent no.1 as a laboratory assistant in 1980 and continued to work with it, till 2010; when she retired as a TGT. 5.1 It appears that the petitioner vide communication dated 14.05.2013, informed respondent no.1 that this court had taken a decision for release of arrears to ex-employees in terms of the recommendations of the 6 th Pay Commission. 5.2 Consequent thereto, on 22.05.2013, the petitioner appears to have received a response from respondent no.1 that no directions had been issued to it for implementation of the recommendations of the 6 th Pay Commission or for payment of arrears by this court.

6. In the meanwhile, this court in WP (C) 1205/2010 titled Davinder Kaushik and Ors. Vs. Guru Nanak Public School and Ors. vide order dated 23.05.2013 directed release of arrears of pay to the petitioner in that case, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. (simple). A further direction was issued that if payment was not made within three (3) months, interest would be paid at the rate of 9% p.a. (simple).

7. Mr. Chhabra, the learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the aforementioned order which was passed in a case involving respondent no.1 was brought to the notice of respondent no.1 vide communication dated 03.06.2013. 7.1 Mr. Chhabra further informs me that the aforesaid communication was followed by a legal notice dated 27.06.2013. 7.2 It is Mr. Chhabra’s contention that since despite, the aforesaid order being brought to the notice of respondent no.1, arrears of salary were not released, the petitioner was constrained to approach the court.

8. Having regard to the fact that respondent no.1 has failed to file its counter affidavit, despite, opportunity having been granted as far back as on 11.10.2013 and, given the fact that respondent no.2, supports the stand of the petitioner that he is entitled to the relief as claimed, I am inclined to direct respondent no.1 to pay arrears of salary of the petitioner in terms of the order issued by this court, in its own case, involving another petitioner, in terms of order dated 23.05.2013. This is specially so, since respondent no.1 has chosen not to file a counter affidavit to lay challenge to any of the averments made by the petitioner. The necessary consequences of which are, that the petition remains untraversed and, the averments made therein, have to be accepted.

9. It is, however, made clear that the arrears of pay and allowance, if any, would be paid to the petitioner bearing in mind the extant provisions of law, which would include, though not limited to the circular dated 11.02.2009.

10. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J JANUARY06 2014/yg