SAVITRI SAHNI Vs. LT GOVERNOR NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby a writ petition filed by the appellant for a writ of mandamus seeking parity in emoluments with those working in Government schools has been dismissed.

(2.) The appellant retired as Principal of a Government school after attaining the age of superannuation way back in the year 1984. She appears to have approached respondent No. 5 school and offered to render voluntary service which request the school accepted and the appellant allowed to join on a mutually agreed honorarium payable to her on a monthly basis. She continued working for the school for nearly 9 years in that capacity during which period the honorarium payable to her was revised from time-to-time to take the same to Rs. 5,500.00 per month on the date she stopped associating with the school in July, 1994. More than 7 years later, she filed a writ petition in this Court inter alia for a mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to ensure compliance with Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder. A mandamus directing respondent No. 5 school to release the alleged retiral dues, arrears of salary and other consequential benefits with interest @ 24% p.a. was also prayed for.

(3.) The petitioner's case in the writ petition was that after her retirement from Government Senior Secondary School, Chirag Delhi, she was appointed as Principal of the respondent No. 5 school in terms of a certain policy under which re-employment is granted to retired Government School Principals. She further alleged that at the time of her employment with the respondent school, she was told that issues relating to fixation of her pay scale and emoluments was under the active consideration of the Management and that immediately upon settlement of the same, the petitioner would be given an appropriate pay scale retrospectively with effect from the date she had joined. In the meantime, she was persuaded to accept Rs. 2000.00 per month. The petitioner's further case is that the emoluments had been revised from time-to-time to take the consolidated sum payable to her to Rs. 5,500.00 per month. Her grievance in that background was that she had been representing to the School for release of her retiral benefits and for arrears of salary which representations had fallen flat on the respondents leaving no option for her except to approach the Court for an appropriate redressal. Reliance was placed by her upon the provisions of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, which according to the petitioner, enjoined upon the Appropriate Authority to direct the Managing Committee of the respondent School to pay to the petitioner the same emoluments and grant the same benefits as were available to the employees of the School run by such Authority.