W.P.(C) No. 11126/2004 Page 1 of 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP (C) No. 11126/2004 % Judgment delivered on: 26.3.2009 Ms. Kamna Ganjoo ...... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.P.Pandey for the petitioner. versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Deepa Tiwari for Ms. Sujata Kashyap , counsel the respondents 1 & 4 Mr. Mayank Yadav for respondent no.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. W.P.(C) No. 11126/2004 Page 2 of 6 * 1. By way of this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 the petitioner seeks direction to the respondent to grant her benefit of her experience of more than four years of service for pay fixation as well as to pay annual raise in her salary during the period from 14.7.2004 to 12.8.2008 with consequential payment of arrears of difference in salary over and above the salary already paid to her. 2. Mr. Pandey counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the protection given by this court vide order dated 16.7.2004, the petitioner continued on the post of PGT (Economics) to the fullest satisfaction of the respondent no.3/respondent. Counsel further submits that the petitioner by her hard work has given excellent results and therefore, there has not been any complaint or grievance against the petitioner by the management of the school during the said period. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has unnecessarily been deprived of the early W.P.(C) No. 11126/2004 Page 3 of 6 increments to which the petitioner was legally entitled and an amount of Rs.50,517/- in all is payable by the respondents towards the differentiation of the salary over and above the amount which stood already paid to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of 6th Pay Commission towards which she has not been paid any amount. The petitioner also claims benefit of her experience of more than 4 years of service in the respondent school for the pay fixation etc. Counsel submits that appropriate directions be given to the respondent to pay the legitimate dues of the petitioner. 3. Since the scope of the writ petition has been narrowed down only to the grant of aforesaid reliefs, after the resignation of the petitioner from the post of PGT (Economics), therefore, I deem it fit to dispose of the present petition at this stage itself. W.P.(C) No. 11126/2004 Page 4 of 6 4. The petitioner has approached this court feeling aggrieved with the order dated 14.7.2004, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated primarily on the ground that she was not possessing OBC certificate issued from GNCT but from Haryana Government, therefore, not entitled to claim the benefit of reservation. The other ground taken by the respondent was that the existing post was valid for a period of six months and since the selection was held on 20.11.2003 beyond the period of six months, therefore, the entire process of the selection of the petitioner became void. 5. Indisputably, the impugned order dated 14.7.2004 was directed to be stayed by this court vide order dated 16.7.2004. In the order dated 16.7.2004, this Court has clearly held that the petitioner had duly furnished the OBC certificate issued by the GNCT, and therefore, the said objection of the respondent in relation to non-furnishing of OBC certificate of the GNCT does not survive any more. As W.P.(C) No. 11126/2004 Page 5 of 6 regards the other contentions taken by the respondents, this court vide orders dated 10.2.2006 and 17.5.2007 gave directions to the respondent no.1 to decide regarding sanction of the regular post of PGT Economics in the respondent school within a period of four weeks from the date of the said order. It was also directed that the respondent shall file an appropriate affidavit so as to disclose the number of students who had opted for Economics in the respondent school. The said directions given by the Court were not complied with by the respondent and it is not in dispute that the petitioner continued to discharge her duties to impart education to the students of economics on the said post of PGT (Economics). Due to the non-compliance of the said directions by the respondent no.1, it is evident that there was a need for the regular full time post of PGT (Economics), on which post the petitioner continued, although under the protection given by this court. I, therefore, do not find any justification to W.P.(C) No. 11126/2004 Page 6 of 6 deny the petitioner her legitimate dues to which she is entitled on the post of PGT (Economics) including her yearly increments, pay fixation and benefits of 6th Pay Commission. 6. The respondents are accordingly directed to grant the petitioner the annual raise in her salary during the period from 14.7.2004 to 12.8.2008 with consequential payment of arrears of difference in salary over and above the salary already paid to her and benefits of 6th Pay Commission, within a period of three months from the date of this order. The respondent shall fix the pay of the petitioner if otherwise permissible under Rules taking into account the length of service rendered by her in the school on the post of PGT (Economics). 7. With these directions, the present petition stands disposed of . March 26, 2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. MG