ANEE MATHEW Vs. ST. JOHNS SCHOOL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH there are various reliefs claimed in the writ petition, the only -relief which is claimed during arguments and the writ petition is hence confined to the relief of the petitioner being paid salary in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission Report which has become applicable to schools in Delhi by virtue of the Notification of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner continues to be an employee of the respondent No. 1/School, and therefore her salary will have to be fixed in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission Report and the Notification of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the respondent No. 1/School will fix the salary of the petitioner in terms of the Report of the 6th Central Pay Commission adopted to schools by the Notification of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009. However, the petitioner in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa & Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty : (2011) 3 SCC 436, will be paid higher salary for a period commencing from a date three years prior to filing the writ petition, and continuously thereafter in accordance with law, including during pendency of the writ petition. It is also clarified that the higher salary will be calculated from the date on which it became payable in terms of the Notification of the Director of Educated dated 11.2.2009, though the amounts due will be payable to the petitioner only for a period of three years prior to filing of the writ petition and thereafter.