Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mrs. Shakuntala Verma vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 27 July, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.815/2009 Monday, this the 27th day of July 2009 Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Mrs. Shakuntala Verma PGT (Geography) Sarvodaya Vidyalaya Ali Ganj (Lodhi Road) New Delhi-3 ..Applicant (By Advocates: Ms. Nandita Rao) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Directorate of Education of Delhi Old Secretariat, Delhi-54 2. Principal Sarvodaya Vidyalaya Aliganj Lodhi Colony New Delhi-3 ..Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Renu George along with Deputy Education Officer, S K Saraswat, Dept. Rept) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri Shanker Raju:
By virtue of this OA, applicant has sought a direction that she may be considered as PGT on re-employment as per the scheme promulgated by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
2. Learned counsel appearing for applicant would contend that she was functioning as PGT and on 31.12.2008 on a review DPC an order of promotion to the post of PGT to Vice Principal has not placed her formally in accordance with law on the post of Vice Principal by allowing her to join duties attached to the higher post of Vice Principal.
3. It is also stated that this promotion is only for the purpose of pay and the joining of the PGTs has been held in abeyance till a present session is over with a stipulation in the order dated 10.1.2009 that they will report to the new place of posting on the post of Vice Principal for pay purposes only. However, they will continue to work as PGTs/ Lecturers in the Schools, where they are currently posted, till further orders.
4. In Union of India v. Pushpa Rani, (2008) 9 SCC 242, the Apex Court has defined what amounts to promotion and this includes not only the enhancement in pay and allowances but also a person discharges the duties and responsibilities attached to the higher post.
5. Applicant before her retirement was also getting financial upgradation to the post of Vice Principal. No doubt, applicant continued to perform the duties of PGT till she retired on 31.3.2009. As such, the promotion order issued remained on paper and has not been given effect to in reality, as she was not allowed to join the higher post of Vice Principal at the relevant time and concerned school.
6. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the applicant was not promoted before she retired on superannuation on 31.3.2009. As such her right to be considered for re-employment as PGT shall be open and respondents shall now consider it by passing a speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/