Compliance with court orders and the applicability of statutory provisions, such as the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. This contempt petition has been filed by the Petitioner on 15.11.2019 stating that Respondents, who are the officers of Green Fields School, A-2 Block, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029, (`School') have not complied with the directions issued by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.04.2019 passed in W.P.(C) 13794/2018, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:

"For prayer b, the petitioner seeks direction thereby directing respondent no.2 to grant financial upgradation as per norms and pay all the consequential benefits including the benefits of the 7th pay commission recommendations as per the mandate of section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.

Mr. Sabu Sebastian, Senior Accountant on behalf of respondent no.2 is present in person and submits that in view of the prayer `b', benefits to the petitioner shall be granted within four weeks.

On the basis of the statement of Mr. Sabu Sebastian, officer on behalf of respondent no.2, I hereby dispose of the present petition directing respondent no.2 to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner within four weeks from the receipt of this order."

(Emphasis supplied)

2. In compliance with the order dated 17.02.2023, the Petitioner has filed written submissions dated 20.02.2023 and the Respondent No.2 has filed short note dated 20.02.2023.

3. The Petitioner stated in the contempt petition that the order dated 23.04.2019 was passed by the Court relying on the statement of the Senior Accountant of the School assuring that financial upgradation will be granted to the Petitioner herein along with all consequential benefits in terms of prayer (b) as sought in W.P.(C) 13794/2018.

3.1. In the petition, the Petitioner also raised a specific averment regarding the financial upgradation granted to Sh. N.L. Sharma, who is junior to the Petitioner herein. She states that though the Petitioner joined service on 01.01.1990, she is drawing a grade pay of Rs.4,800, whereas Sh. N.L Sharma, who joined service subsequently on 01.04.1991 has got the upgradation and is drawing a higher grade pay of Rs.5,400. She states that, therefore, the School has refused to comply with the directions issued vide order dated 23.04.2019.

4. Notice in this petition was issued vide order dated 21.07.2020. On the said date of hearing, the Respondents had stated that the order dated 23.04.2019 stands complied with and all arrears and dues have been paid to the Petitioner. In this regard, this Court directed the Respondents to file a compliance affidavit. The relevant portion of the order dated 21.07.2020 reads as under:

"Issue notice.

Mr. Amit Saxena, learned counsel for Respondent No.1, accepts notice and at the outset, on instructions, submits that the order dated 23.04.2019 has been complied with and the requisite benefits have been released to the Petitioner.

Ms. Indrani Ghosh, however, rebuts this submission.

Let reply/compliance affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing."

(Emphasis supplied)

5. Subsequently, vide order dated 15.10.2020, this Court has taken note of the submission of the Respondents that most of the benefits in terms of the order dated 23.04.2019 have been disbursed to the Petitioner, which was disputed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. The relevant portion of the order dated 15.10.2020 reads as under:

"Mr. Amit Saxena submits that most of the benefits in terms of the order dated 23.04.2019 have been disbursed to the Petitioner. Ms. Indrani Ghosh, however, vehemently opposes the submission and submits that the Petitioner has not been given the financial upgradation in terms of the judgment, as per which she is entitled to the grade pay of Rs.5400 in PB-2, for the pre-revised scale of Rs.8000-13,500/- under the 5th Pay Commission. She also submits that revised benefits under the 7th Pay Commissioner have not been disbursed to the Petitioner on the basis of t