GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. JASBIR SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A case of imperfect pleadings has resulted in an inchoate order being passed without even highlighting what was the issue which required adjudication. Both, the petitioners as also the respondent are responsible for the same. As per respondent's claim pleaded in OA No.458/2010, she

(2.) WAS a direct recruited librarian in the Directorate of Education and was drawing salary in the pay scale Rs.1400 - 2600 which was the scale recommended by the 4th Central Pay Commission. Increment was due to her on the first day of February each year and thus her basic pay which was Rs.1,900/- per month as of February 01, 1995 was enhanced to Rs.1,950/- per month as on February 01, 1996. Her case was that she became entitled to be placed in the senior scale of Rs.1640 - 2900 (the date has not been plead with effect wherefrom respondent was to be placed in the senior scale). She claims that in February 01, 1997 she was given the next increment after she was placed in the senior scale and her basic salary was fixed at Rs.2,060/-. Respondent claims that the 5th Central Pay Commission

(3.) THE lacuna in the pleading is that the respondent has not pleaded as to why she was entitled to two increments. But it appears that basis of her claim for two increments was one step up of pay on being placed in the senior scale and the other being the annual increment due to her. The response in the counter affidavit filed to the original application is one worse. In a short and a cryptic two page reply it is pleaded that the claim was time barred. Without justifying as to on what basis respondent's basic pay was fixed at Rs.6,500/-, dealing with the plea of discrimination vis-a-vis Shri S.S.Malik, Ms.Suman Gupta and Mr.A.K.Gupta it is pleaded that the same required rectification qua salary of said three persons and not that the salary of the respondent be fixed accordingly.