Employers have a statutory obligation to revise salaries and emoluments under Pay Commissions, and the defense of delay and laches cannot be raised to deny the benefits accruing therefrom.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. Present writ petitions have been filed by the Petitioners seeking directions to Respondent No.1/Managing Committee, Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar (hereinafter referred to as the `School') for correct fixation of the salaries and other allowances of the Petitioners in accordance with the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, (hereinafter referred to as the `Rules 2008'), issued in exercise of powers conferred by Proviso to Article 309 and Clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution of India, pursuant to the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC), effective from 01.01.2006. On account of the similitude of the legal issues arising in the four petitions, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The facts germane for deciding the present writ petitions are in a narrow compass. Petitioners are Teachers employed with the School and their respective dates of appointments, etc. are set out hereunder:

3. Pursuant to the recommendations of 7th CPC, CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 (`Rules, 2016') were notified and published by the Government of India on 25.07.2016 and vide Circular dated 17.10.2017, Government of NCT of Delhi directed the private unaided recognized schools of Delhi to extend the benefits of 7th CPC recommendations by virtue of the mandate of Section 10(1) of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), at par with the Government employees of corresponding status. Aggrieved by non-grant of pay revision under 7th CPC, Petitioners filed writ petitions before this Court, which were decided by a common judgment dated 06.05.2021. The writ petitions were allowed and the School was directed to refix the salaries and other emoluments of the Petitioners applying the revised pay matrix under 7th CPC. Direction was also issued for release of arrears thereon.

4. The School thereafter filed applications in the disposed of writ petitions for extension of time for compliance of the directions in the judgment dated 06.05.2021, which were dismissed by order dated 26.07.2021. As per the case set up by the Petitioners, it was only when the School started refixing the revised salaries under 7th CPC that the Petitioners realised that their salaries and emoluments were incorrectly fixed under the 6th CPC and they had not been given the benefit of the pay in the Pay Band in accordance with Rule 8 of Rules 2008 read with Section II of Part A of the First Schedule, considering that there is direct recruitment in the posts of TGT and PGT. This was contrary to the stand taken by the School in the additional affidavits dated 23.11.2019 filed in the earlier writ petitions, wherein a categorical stand was taken by the School that 6th CPC recommendations had been implemented and Petitioners were being paid salaries and allowances as per Rules 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. At that stage, Petitioners had no reason to disbelieve the stand taken in the additional affidavit and therefore the issue of correct fixation of salaries under 6th CPC was not agitated. However, once it was realized that the School had filed false affidavits and as a matter of fact the salaries of the Petitioners were incorrectly fixed under the 6th CPC, Petitioners made representations to the School for correct fixation, however, getting no response, present writ petitions were filed.

5. The grievance ventilated in the present writ petitions, succinctly put, is that Petitioners in W.P.(C) 2362/2022, W.P.(C) 2363/2022 and W.P.(C) 2427/2022 are TGTs while Petitioner in W.P.(C) 2428/2022 is a PGT and are entitled to fixation of their pay in accordance with Rule 7 of Rules 2008, with a caveat that th