SUSHILA KAUL Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has impugned the order dated July 20, 2011 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has dismissed the OA 2544/2011 of the petitioner on the ground that claims made therein are stale.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) w.e.f. October 12, 1970 in the language stream and was posted in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Narela, Delhi in the pay scale of Rs. 220- 550. She served for 13 years in the same capacity uptil September 29, 1983 in various secondary schools. On September 30, 1983, she was promoted as PGT (language). From September 30, 1984 to September 30, 1997, petitioner served as PGT (Selection grade). Thereafter, she was promoted as Vice Principal and remained posted in the Government Senior Secondary School, Ghitorni from September 30, 1997 to August 16, 2002. Thereafter, she was promoted as Principal and worked as such for three years. On September 30, 2005, petitioner took voluntary retirement. Vide order dated August 01, 2006 issued by Addl. Director of Education (Admn.) with prior approval of Competent Authority, petitioner was awarded selection scale in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4400 (pre-revised) w.e.f. November 22, 1992. The grievance of petitioner is that respondents have delayed her promotion to PGT (Selection Grade) and have not fixed her revised pay scale and have not paid her arrears. She also made representation to Government but of no use. Left with no option, she filed OA seeking direction against the respondent for re-fixing pay and allowances of the petitioner at various stages i.e., promotion to the post of PGT Grade Pay, PGT (Selection Grade), Vice Principal and Principal and to grant her arrears of pay and allowances as a consequence of refixation of pay and also to revise her retiral benefits consequent upon revision of pay.

(3.) The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. in limini by observing that claims made by the petitioner were stale being related to the years 1983, 1997, 2003 and 2005.