Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1293 (DEL)

MODERN PUBLIC SCHOOLEDU. S v. GOVT. OFNCTOFDELHI

2007-07-05

REKHA SHARMA

body2007
REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) 1. Prior to this writ-petition, Rakesh Nehra, who isrespondent No. 2 had filed a writ petition bearing No. 15987 of2004 in which he prayed for a direction to the petitioner herein,namely, Modern Public School Education Society (Regd.) to redesignate the post of PET – cum – Office Assistant as PET andconsequently to grant him the pay-scale of PET with effect fromthe date of his initial appointment. The post of PET – cum –Office Assistant was initially in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2040 which was subsequently revised to Rs. 4500-7000. The post of PETcarried the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000. Thus, the petitioner alsoclaimed the arrears of salary owing to difference in the pay-scale. 2. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 was employedby the petitioner as PET – cum – Office Assistant on March 10,1997. He is still working as such. However, on September 18, 2003, he made representation to the School stating that though he was appointed as PET – cum – Office Assistant he was working only as PET and that the designation of PET – cum – Office Assistant as was given to him was only a cloak to deprive him of actual pay-scale of PET. This fact was disputed by the School. 3. The aforesaid writ petition filed by respondentNo. 2 involved disputed questions of fact inasmuch as while as per him,he was working as PET and yet was not being paid salary of that scale, according to the School, he was appointed as PET – cum – Office Assistant and mostly discharged the functions of OfficeAssistant which was a ministerial post. ThisCourt in view of thedisputed nature of the facts, by an order dated July 13, 2005 directed the Director of Education “to consider the representationof petitioner and also examine all the material produced by theparties on the issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled tothe pay-scale prescribed for PET.” It was implicit in this order that before giving a finding asto the scale towhich respondentNo. 2 was entitled, the Director was required to go into the question whether respondent No. 2 was actually performing the duties of only PET or that of PET – cum – Office Assistant. 4. On a perusal of the order passed by the Director datedAugust 25, 2005,I find that it does not dealwith the questionsquarely and effectively. 4. On a perusal of the order passed by the Director datedAugust 25, 2005,I find that it does not dealwith the questionsquarely and effectively. The Director of Education seems to havebeen swayed by the fact that there is no post of PET – cum– Office Assistant in the Directorate of Education and that in viewof Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, the Schoolcannot but be asked to give the salary of PET to respondent No. 2as is applicable to PET employed in the Directorate of Education.This, in my view, is begging the question. It was incumbent upon the Director of Education to have first given a finding whetherrespondent No. 2 was performing only the functions of PET or was working as PET – cum – OfficeAssistant and only in the event of the Director giving the finding that he was working as PET thatan order as has been passed by the Director could be passed. 5. Having regard to what has been noticed above, I remand the case to the Director of Education with a direction to address the issue afresh and to give a specific finding after consideringall the documents placed by both sides on the question whether therespondent No. 2 was working as a PET or PET – cum –Office Assistant. The order shall be passed within four months fromtoday. In view of these directions, the earlier order of the Director of Education dated August 25, 2005 is set aside. Theparties shall appear before the Director of Education on July 25,2007. 6. The writ petitions stand disposed of.