LAWS(DLH)-2010-1-14

SADHNA PAYAL Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

Decided On January 11, 2010
SADHNA PAYAL Appellant
V/S
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek directions to respondent No. 2 for the implementation of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission and for the payment of their revised salaries and other benefits w.e.f. 1.1.1996.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioners are teachers in respondent No. 2 school which is affiliated to C.B.S.E. The Director of Education, GNCT issued order dated 21.10.1997 stating that the Government of India has implemented the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission notifying the revised pay scales of various categories of teachers in Part-B, hereby endorsing the same and instructing all the concerned to fix the same and the same be effective from 1.1.1996. Earlier C.B.S.E had already issued a circular dated 22.07.1997 to the same effect. Therefore, as per the above mentioned two circulars read with Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, the petitioners are entitled to be paid their revised pay scales and other benefits from 1.1.1996. However, the respondent No. 2 school has implemented them from 1.4.1997 and not from 1.1.1996.

(3.) Mr. Sanjiv Sachdeva Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the respondent No. 2 in fact has already implemented the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.4.97 since no specific directions were given by the GNCT to the respondent No. 2 to implement the 5th Pay Commission from 1.1.1996 and therefore, the said recommendations were implemented when the fee hike was permitted by the High Court. Counsel also drew attention of this court to the Circular dated 21.10.1997 issued by the Directorate of Education, GNCT, which was made applicable only to the Govt. schools or Govt. aided schools and not to the public schools. Counsel further submitted that there will be a huge burden on the respondent No. 2 school, if now directions are given to the school to implement the said recommendations. Counsel further submitted that even other public schools have implemented the said recommendations after 1997.