Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 295 (DEL)

MOTI RAM MITTAL v. DELHI ADMINSTRATION

2000-03-10

A.K.SIKRI

body2000
A. K. SIKRI ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by two petitioners claiming selection grade in the post PGT and TGT respectively. One need not state the facts in detail as under similar facts and circumstances this Court had pronounced three judgments. Suffice is to state that one Mr. I. S. Goyal, employed in the same school like the petitioners herein filed Civil Writ Petition No. 389 of 1979 when he was denied selection grade. This writ petition was allowed by order dated 11/03/1988 and the operative portion of the said judgment reads as under:- "the petitioner has been working in an institution which was managed by a society. Besides this institution the society was also managing another school and the seniority was kept joint of the teachers in the two schools. The selection grade post fell vacant with effect from 1. 1. T973 and it could not be filled. A recommendation was made by the school for the grant of selection grade to the petitioner on the basis of joint seniority list and it was stated that according to the rules the petitioner was entitled. By the impugned order this recommendation was rejected as I have already indicated above. However, the question of maintenance of common seniority of employees of different schools run by the same society after the enforcement of Delhi School Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder remained under consideration of the Directorate of Education. It was finally decided in November 1979 in consultation with the law Department that a joint seniority of the teachers working in various schools run by the Trust/societies should continue to be maintained for the purpose of permission and grant of selection grade. This is clear from the memorandum dated 14. 11. 1979 (Annexure A-1 to C. M. of 1986) filed in this writ petition by the petitioner. Respondents 3 to 6 were impleaded by the petitioner but a statement was made on their behalf before the Tribunal when the petition was transferred that the petition is not being contested by those respondents. Thus the contesting respondents are only respondent no. 1 and 2 who are being represented before me. The Education Officer who is present in person very fairly and frankly concedes that in view of this memorandum the petitioner is entitled to the selection garde. Thus the contesting respondents are only respondent no. 1 and 2 who are being represented before me. The Education Officer who is present in person very fairly and frankly concedes that in view of this memorandum the petitioner is entitled to the selection garde. She states that it could not be implemented due to the pendency of this writ petition. I must record my appreciation for a fair concession made in this petition and saving the time of the Court. " ( 2 ) AFTER the aforesaid judgment combined seniority list of the two schools was made by the society running these two schools and was sent to Directorate of Education for approval on 28/05/1988. On the basis of the said seniority list, statement of eligibility of selection grade in PGT as well as TGT cadre was prepared. As per this seniority list name of petitioner No. 1 appears for being eligible to get selection grade in PGT cadre and name of petitioner No. 2 appears for being eligible to get selection grade in TGT cadre. Names of certain other persons who were eligible for this selection grade in PGT and TGT cadre also appeared in this seniority list. However, Directorate of Education did not grant approval hence another writ Petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 3567 of 1991 entitled Shri Sidha Nand Shastri and others versus Delhi Administration and others was filed by some persons. This was allowed vide order dated 31/01/1992 and the operative part of this judgment reads as under:- "it is further stated that petitioner no. 1 has since retired and immediate steps may be taken to clear his pension and other superannuary benefits. In view of the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents 1 to 3, I grant the reliefs as prayed in the writ petition Respondents are directed to finalise the matter and clear the arrears of the petitioners within two months from the submission of the necessary report by respondents 4 and 5. The Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 states that the necessary report shall be submitted within a period of one month from today. However, if the payment is delayed beyond the period of two months from the submission of the report by respondents 4 and 5, respondents shall pay interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum to the petitioners from the date such amount became due. However, if the payment is delayed beyond the period of two months from the submission of the report by respondents 4 and 5, respondents shall pay interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum to the petitioners from the date such amount became due. " ( 3 ) THE respondent school however gave benefit only to those who have approached the court with the result that one Mr. N. K. Bhardwaj who was similarly situated as petitioners in the petition and was denied selection grade, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1518 of 1992 and this was allowed by the Judgment dated 11/05/1994. ( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner is identical to the aforesaid three cases. In fact respondent-school have extended the benefit of the judgment passed in the above cases to only those persons who have approached the Court. Once these judgments are passed giving benefit of selection grade to similarly situated persons as the petitioners. In normal course the respondents should have suo motto extended this benefit to petitioners also on the ground of parity and in conformity of principles of equity as enshrined under Article 14 of Constitution of India. However, as it was not done present petition is filed by the petitioners claiming the selection grade. The case of the petitioners is covered by the aforesaid three judgments. This petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. The petitioners shall be entitled to selection grade in PGT/tgt cadre w. e. f. 15/01/1975. ( 5 ) SINCE petitioners have already retired, the arrears off pay be calculated after giving the benefit of selection grade and the same be paid within a period of three months. If it is not paid within a period of three months the petitioners shall become entitled to interest @ 12 p. a. from the date of judgment till payment of the dues. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.