Delhi High Court
Deepika Jain vs Rukmini Devi Public School & Ors. on 23 September, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 237/2013
% 23rd September, 2013
DEEPIKA JAIN ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Adv.
VERSUS
RUKMINI DEVI PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan and Mr.
Mukesh Jain, Advs.
Ms. Sana Ansari, Adv. for Ms.
Zubeda Begum, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks implementation of the 6th Pay Commission Report and her consequential up-gradation of salary as also payment of arrears of salary for the period from 1.1.2006 to 11.10.2007.
2. The Director of Education by its circular dated 11.2.2009 has ordered the schools in Delhi to make necessary payments in terms of the 6 th Pay Commission Report.
WPC 237/2013 Page 1 of 4
3. I have held in many cases, including the case of Meenu Thakur Vs. Somer Ville School & Ors. W.P.(C) 8748/2010 decided on 13.2.2013 that paucity of funds is not a ground to not pay amounts as per the 6th Pay Commission Report and the order of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009. A Division Bench of this Court in LPA 286/2010 titled as Rukmani Devi Jaipuria Public School Vs. Sadhna Payal & Ors. decided on 11.5.2012 has also held that paucity of funds is not a ground not to make payments as per the 6th Pay Commission Report.
4. Counsel for respondent no.1-school seeks to draw attention of this Court to paras 7,8 etc of the order of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009 and argues that unless there is a fee hike and parents deposit the higher tuition fees, there is no liability of the school to make payment in terms of the order of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009.
5. I am afraid I cannot agree with the argument because paras 1 to 3 of the circular dated 11.2.2009 make it clear that a fee hike is not mandatory and schools have to explore payment from the existing funds and the existing reserves to meet any shortfall in payment of salaries and allowances etc as a consequence of increase in the salaries and allowances of employees. It is further made clear in para 3 of the circular that fee hike WPC 237/2013 Page 2 of 4 takes place only after presenting a detailed financial statement indicating income and expenditure on each account, to the Parent Teacher Association and other steps have also been taken for increase of the tuition fees. Therefore, it is clear that no school can claim paucity of funds as the basis for refusing to follow the order of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009 and the ground that fee hike has not taken place.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of by directing the respondent no.1-school to make payment to the petitioner of all the amounts in terms of the order of the Director of Education dated 11.2.2009 for the period from 1.1.2006 to 11.10.2007. Petitioner will be entitled not only to arrears which would be payable to her but also the enhancement of salary in terms of the 6th Pay Commission Report for the period from 1.1.2006 to 11.10.2007 as prayed for in the writ petition. Amounts be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today alongwith interest at 6% per annum simple from the dates on which the amounts became due till the date of payment. In case the payment is made after a period of 3 months to the petitioner, then, petitioner will be WPC 237/2013 Page 3 of 4 entitled to interest at 9% per annum simple for the period after three months. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
WPC 237/2013 Page 4 of 4