Delhi School Education Act, 1973 – Section 10 - Delay in filing writ petition seeking 7th CPC salary is no ground to deny arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2016 – Delhi High Court

20 December 2022

Delhi High Court

Delhi School Education Act, 1973 – Section 10 - Delay in filing writ petition seeking 7^th CPC salary is no ground to deny arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2016 – Delhi High Court

 

In the year 2022, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, PGT (Physical Education), filed a writ petition [W.P. (C) 6841/2022] seeking salary as per 7^th CPC in terms of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.

 

The petition was opposed by the Lions Public School, Delhi, on the ground that the writ petition was belated and, therefore, the arrears of salary can only be paid for a period of 3 years preceding the date of filing the writ petition.

 

Delhi High Court, vide Order dated 20.12.2022, allowed the writ petition filed by Mr. Verma and held that delay in filing a writ petition is not a valid ground for denying arrears of salary to an employee w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The directive paragraph of the Order dated 20.12.2022 is reproduced below for ready reference: -

 

“26. The issue also arose for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Vidya Bharati School v. Directorate of Education & Ors., in LPA No. 541/2018 decided on 16.09.2022 and relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Keraleeya Samajam and Another (supra), the Division Bench held that limiting the claim of arrears to three years prior to filing the writ petition is untenable in view of the dicta of the Supreme Court. The Division Bench held that the School did not comply with the directions and obligations when it was required to do so by revising the salaries in accordance with Section 10(1) of the DSE&R on account of the revision under 6th CPC and now due to lapse of time, it cannot take away the benefits because of its own recalcitrance to comply with Government’s directions and statutory obligations. Non-compliance over a long period would not create any special equities in favour of the School and it does not get absolved of its statutory obligation to pay salaries in terms of 6th Pay Commission recommendations, as pay revisions in terms of Pay Commissions’ recommendations is a matter of public policy, with the objective of ensuring that with passage of time, purchasing power of the Government employee is not denuded by inflation and other relevant factors. Even in Shikha Sharma (supra), this Court has directed release of arrears under 6th CPC to the Petitioners in the said case without any restrictions/limitation of three years prior to the filing of the writ petitions and in fact, has also directed payment of interest @ 6% per annum with a further direction that on failure to pay the amounts within six months as directed by the Court, the School will incur a liability of payment of a higher rate of interest i.e. 9% per annum on the arrears of both 6th and 7th CPC. Both the contentions of the School are thus rejected.”

[Mukesh Kumar Verma Vs. Lions Public School & Ors., W.P. (C) 6841/2022, decided on 20.12.2022]

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2023011016733573222022%20Del%20Single%20-%20Mukesh%20Kumar%20Verma.pdf

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

Appointment on the post of PGT (Economics) (Female) (Post Code 67/20) in Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Applicant had M.A. (Economics) degree from Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu

17 November 2022

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi

 

Appointment on the post of PGT (Economics) (Female) (Post Code 67/20) in Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Applicant had M.A. (Economics) degree from Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu – Delhi Government failed to issue appointment letter to the applicant on the ground that Annamalai University is not recognized by University Grants Commission (UGC) – Applicant filed an Original Application (O.A.) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi and contended that in similar circumstances Kerela High Court, in W.P. (C) No. 16419/2022, has granted relief to the candidates – CAT issued notice to the Delhi Government, Annamalai University as well as UGC, and directed the Delhi Government to keep one post of PGT (Economics) (Female) (Post Code 67/20) vacant, as interim relief, during the pendency of O.A. before CAT

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/202301111673433002Order%20-%20Komal%20Vs.%20Annamalai.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

 

[Komal Vs. DSSSB & Ors., OA No. 3358/2022, date of Order – 17.11.2022]

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

Doctors/Medical Officers in Employees’ State Insurance Corporation are entitled to continue in service up to 65 years – Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

17 November 2022

 

Doctors/Medical Officers in Employees’ State Insurance Corporation are entitled to continue in service up to 65 years – Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

 

Dr. R.B. Gupta was appointed as Insurance Medical Officer (Grade-II) by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) on 26.05.1992.

 

On 31.08.2022, Dr. Gupta was retired by the ESIC on attaining 62 years of age. In terms of the Order dated 30.12.2016, passed by the ESIC, a medical officer is entitled to continue in service up to 65 years of age.

 

Being aggrieved, Dr. Gupta filed an Original Application [OA No. 3357/2022] before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

 

Vide Order dated 17.11.2022, the Tribunal directed the ESIC as under: -

 

“6. Although there is no representation on behalf of the respondents, after careful consideration of the issue involved in the present OA and the relevant rules/notification/circular governing the issue at hand, we consider it appropriate to dispose of this OA, at this initial stage. Circular dated 30.12.2016, issued by the ESIC and signed by one Director (Med. Admn.) is crystal clear and conclusively states that the age of superannuation of medical officers stands enhanced from the existing 62 years to 65 years with immediate effect. Once the ESI Corporation, by its own order, has enhanced the age of retirement of the doctors to 65 years without any rider or condition or proviso whatsoever, there is no cause for them to now issue order of retirement of the applicant on attaining the age of 62 years as that is no longer the age of superannuation. Moreover, the amendment to the Fundamental Rules (FR) also gives option to the concerned Medical Officer to seek enhancement of age from 62 years to 65 years. The only power vested with the Competent Authority, under the FR’s, is to decide such an option on the basis of expertise and experience. In case of the Medical Officer, who is professionally qualified and has worked for a period of years, the experience and expertise can be determined only on the basis of testimonials.

 

7. Therefore, in our considered view, the respondents are required to re-visit their order and review it strictly in accordance with the rules and instructions governing the subject specifically their own order dated 30.12.2016 bearing No.A-40/11/13/1/2016-Med.VI., read with amendment to FR’s. The competent authority amongst the respondents after such a review shall pass appropriate order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

 

5. OA stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”

 

[Dr. R. B. Gupta Vs. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation & Ors., O.A. No. 3357/2022, Decided on – 17.11.2022, Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2022112616694735732022%20CAT%20-%20Dr.%20R.B.Gupta.pdf

 

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com