RANJU SHARMA &ORS Vs. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the teaching staff of respondent-School, who seek implementation of order of 29th October, 2013 (Annexure P-1), passed in W.P.(C) 6804/2013 Sangeeta Singh & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. Vide aforesaid order of 29th October, 2013 (Annexure P-1), it was directed that if any action is to be taken against the employees of respondent-School, including the teachers, then respondent-School shall take action in terms of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. Regarding payment of salary in terms of Sixth Central Pay Commission, it was directed that Circular of 11th February, 2009 issued by respondentDirectorate of Education be complied with by respondent-School. However, liberty was granted to respondent-School to put its stand before respondent-Directorate of Education, if so permitted.

(2.) Petitioners in paragraph No.2 of the writ petition have categorically asserted that recommendation of Sixth Central Pay Commission, as applicable from 1st January, 2006, have not been implemented in its true letter and spirit. In the corresponding paragraph of counter affidavit filed by respondent-School, it is asserted that petitioners have admitted that they are receiving the salary in terms of the Sixth Central Pay Commission. In the rejoinder filed by petitioners, it is blandly stated that the averments in paragraph No.2 of counter affidavit filed by respondentSchool is false and frivolous.

(3.) Attention of this Court is drawn by petitioners' counsel to paragraph No. C of preliminary objections in the rejoinder to counter affidavit of respondents No.2 to 4, which reveals that petitioners are attributing misconception to the Bench which had passed order in the contempt petition. It is nowhere stated in this paragraph or elsewhere that any such statement was not made by petitioners in CCP No.126/2014 that petitioners are getting salary under the Sixth Central Pay Commission. Petitioners have contemptuously stated in the aforesaid paragraph No.C that the contempt petition was not legally disposed of by the Court. To say the least, it is contemptuous to say so, that too, when no steps were taken to seek review of order of 20th January, 2015 in CCP No. 126/2014.