IMPORTANT POINT
The petitioner's entitlement to arrears was based on the pay scale in the service book, and the respondent-School's non-cooperation led to adverse inference.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J.

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking the following reliefs:

"i) issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the difference of arrears of petitioners' salary based on his pay-scale 4500-725-7000 and the actual consolidated salary of Rs.4100/- p.m paid to him from 6-9-2004 till July, 2010;

AND

ii) direct the respondent no.1 further to pay salary based on his pay- scale for the month of July, 2010;

AND

iii) direct the respondent no.1 further to release the petitioner's provident fund money and gratuity:

AND

iv) this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct an inquiry by the Director of Education, Government of N.C.T into the affairs of the School with regard to payment of salary to the teachers and other staffs of the school;

v) pass such other order/s as may be deemed fit and proper;"

2. The facts, shorn off unnecessary details and germane to the disputes are as under:

a. The petitioner claims to be a Graduate and a Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications (hereinafter referred to as "PGDCA") and claims to be pursuing B.Ed at the time when he was appointed as Assistant Teacher. Petitioner claims that he was made permanent and accordingly a service book was opened. Petitioner submits that even though the petitioner was appointed in the pay-scale of 4500-125-7000, the respondent-School paid only a consolidated sum of Rs.4100/- p.m.

b. Petitioner alleges to have raised the issue of discrepancy in his salary with the Manager of the School, who according to the petitioner, bore a grudge against him and eventually turned the petitioner out of School on 14.07.2010. On 26.07.2010 petitioner states to have issued a legal notice demanding payment of difference of salary @ Rs.19,000/- w.e.f. the year 2007 till July, 2010 besides other demands. It was specifically made clear to the respondent-School even at that time that the Petitioner did not seek reinstatement.

c. By the reply dated 13.08.2020, the respondent-School refused to agree to the demands. It is the claim of the petitioner that he kept pursuing his case and the management asked him to settle his dues @ Rs.4100/- as pay in lieu of notice and salary for nine days.

d. Since the respondent-School did not accede to the demands of the petitioner, vide the representation dated 13.10.2011 the petitioner requested the Director, DoE, Government of NCT to initiate an enquiry and action against the respondent-School and sought personal hearing. Petitioner asserts that he had not received any response from the Office of the Director, DoE.

e. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming the legitimate dues which have been denied to him since September, 2004 and has not sought resumption of duty. According to the petitioner, the mandate of Section 10 of Delhi School education Act, 1973 (in short "DSEA") have been violated.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

3. Mr. Khagesh Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected by the then Management of respondent-School on 06.09.2004, according to him, as an Assistant Teacher (Computer). He submits that though, the petitioner was appointed in the pay scale of 4500-125-7000 the Management paid him only a consolidated amount of Rs.4100/- p.m.

4. Learned counsel draws attention of this Court to the service book maintained by the respondent-School to submit that though the petitioner was receiving a salary of Rs.4100/- p.m., yet the service book disclosed as if the respondent school was paying salary in the pay scale of 4500-125-7000, on and from 06.09.2004. He submits that the service record showed increment being granted to the petitioner every year which was maintained uptil the year 2007. He also points out to the chart of employees maintained by respondent-School and furnished to the respondent no.1 in terms of the R