KAVITA MISHRA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, petitioner prays for basically two reliefs. First relief is for quashing the letters by which the petitioner's services were to be terminated on the ground that petitioner was over -age. The second relief which is claimed by the petitioner is that petitioner must be paid arrears of salary as per recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission Report. I may note that since the respondent no. 2 -school took up a stand that the petitioner's services had to be terminated on account of directions of the Director of Education which pointed out that petitioner was over -age at the time of appointment. Interim orders passed by this Court were vacated and the petitioner's services now stand terminated w.e.f. 18.7.2013. The relief prayed for in this case therefore with respect to issuing of directions not to terminate the services of the petitioner becomes infructuous, more so because petitioner has already rightly challenged the termination order by filing an appeal before the Delhi School Tribunal in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Gaur vs. NCT of Delhi & Ors., : 2001 (10) SCC 445. Accordingly, so far as the first relief is concerned, the issue of validity of termination of the petitioner will be decided by the Delhi School Tribunal and nothing contained in today's order is a reflection on merits of the case for or against any of the parties.

(2.) THAT takes us to the second relief claimed by the petitioner for implementation by the school of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission Report for the period from 1.1.2006 to 31.1.2009. Counsel for the petitioner states that this period in fact be extended till the petitioner's services were terminated till 18.7.2013. By invoking principle akin to Order 7 Rule 7 CPC for taking note of subsequent events, I allow the modification of prayer clause to be considered that petitioner must be paid her salary in terms of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission Report from 1.1.2006 till 18.7.2013 in view of the fact that the Director of Education has directed implementation of the 6th Pay Commission Report for the schools in terms of its notification dated 11.2.2009.

(3.) NOW on the issue as to the calculations of the amount due. This aspect in the opinion of this Court instead of being dealt with by the Court, can be done by the Director of Education, and I have passed various orders in this regard and one such order is passed in connected writ petitions with lead case being W.P. (C) No. 1119/2011 titled as Meena Singh Vs. Director of Education & Anr. decided on 4.7.2013 wherein I have directed that an employee must make a detailed representation to the Director of Education supported by documents and to which reply is given by the respondent -school, and the Director of Education after hearing the parties should pass speaking orders.