KANWAR SINGH Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners 1-17 are working as Additional Directors and Deputy education Officers in the Department of Education of Municipal Corporation of delhi. They have filed the present writ petition seeking direction in the nature of mandamus to implement Resolution No. 475 dated 21st November, 2005 passed by the respondent Corporation along with consequential benefits. The second direction sought for in the writ petition is that the respondent corporation should re-fix and release monthly salary as per revised pay scale approved by the Corporation vide Resolution No. 475 dated 21st November, 2005 and notified by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Education) vide Office Order dated 28th December, 2005.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner admits that the Resolution No. 475 dated 21st November, 2005 has been implemented. Monthly salary of the petitioners 1-17 has been re-fixed and pay released. This fact is also mentioned in the order dated 3rd December, 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that petitioners 1-17 are entitled to interest as the enhanced salary was belatedly released. He relies upon Office Order dated 28th December, 2005 issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Education)pursuant to which the pay scales of the Education Officer-cum-Director, additional Director and Deputy Education Officer were revised with effect from 1st January, 1996. It is also submitted that subsequent resolution passed by the Corporation on 11th December, 2006 being Resolution No. 541 was only reiteration of the earlier resolution. It is submitted that after Office Order dated 28th December, 2005 was passed, a legal right accrued to the petitioners to claim enhanced/revised pay scale with effect from 1st January, 1996. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon two judgments of this Court in the case of Union of India and Another versus rattan Singh, reported in 139 (2007) DLT 629 (DB) and Roshan Lal and Others versus DTC, reported in 140 (2007) DLT 49.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent-MCD, on the other hand, submits that after Resolution No. 475 dated 21st November, 2005 was passed, it could not be implemented because concurrence of the Finance Department was not obtained. It is further stated that there were no common grounds for comparison or revision of pay scales. The final decision for revision of pay scales was taken vide office Order dated 28th September, 2007 and, therefore, there was no delay in payment of revised/enhanced pay scale and thus question of payment of interest does not arise.