AJAY KUMAR SHAMRA Vs. DILSHAD PUBLIC SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are 13 petitioners in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These petitioners in terms of the chart given in para 3 of the writ petition are working in the posts of T.G.T or P.R.T or Chowkidar or Water -woman with the respondent no.1. Petitioners though have claimed various reliefs in this writ petition, the prayer before this Court is confined to petitioners being granted benefit of the 6th Central Pay Commission Report which is applicable to schools in terms of the notification of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009.

(2.) RESPONDENT nos. 1 and 2, school and society have filed a counter affidavit stating that the school does not have finances, and therefore the petitioners cannot be granted payments in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission Report.

(3.) I have had an occasion to consider this aspect in the judgment delivered by me in the case of Meenu Thakur Vs. Somerville School and Ors. in W.P.(C) No.8748/2010 decided on 13.2.2013, wherein I have held that lack of financial ability of the school is not a ground to deny benefits to teachers of payments in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations. Even a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rukmani Devi Jaipuria Public School Vs. Sadhna Payal and Ors. in LPA No.286/2010 decided on 11.5.2012 has held that merely because the school cannot shift the burden on the students by enhancing the fees, the same is totally immaterial and an irrelevant question, when, the question is of payment to the teachers in terms of the revised pay -scale as per a pay commission report made applicable to schools by the Director of Education.